Indian Interests

[devesh]

Stan,
those excerpts prove "conclusively" that Nehru was dithering on Hyderabad citing various excuses like "Pakistan's reaction" "peaceful means", etc. Hyderabad was sitting in the middle of the country, and Nehru was grandstanding on some imaginary "fears". no thanks, I'd much rather have a leader who would bat aside such insignificant flies as he Nizam without any care. and the Nizam was an insignificant fly. once the Army moved in, the Nizam's forces surrendered rapidly. There was no reason to dither that long.

and your excerpts don't prove that Nehru was "decisive". he continues in his classic approach of talking on both sides of the argument. on one hand, he keeps harping on "peaceful measures" and on the other, he is talking about "barbaric" situation. on one hand, he keeps talking about not waiting for UN, and on the other he keeps talking about "fear" of Pakistan.....this is classic Nehruvian dithering.

what "data" do you have that shows that Nehru was "decisive" in taking Hyderabad, and didn't dither for months on to reach a decision?

[Stan_Savljevic]

Devesh, every leader is like that. They have the worries that you and I dont have .

One other leader went on bus to Lahore, brought musharaff to agra, all the while when Kargil was cooking up. Then he unilaterally imposed a constraint of not crossing the LoC and with too many losses the Army/AF cleared the mess. Then, an attack on the Parliament happened, he pushed soldiers to the LoC and kept em on a state of high alert for 8-9 months. Then pulled them back in because the surprise was lost, the Army was getting pissed with the high alert mode, etc. Talk about decisive. I would call it Grade A decisive, if you ask me .

Another leader famously said "no action is also action." Even more decisive indeed .

A third leader famously slept himself on the dais more often than not, and when the nukular files were brought to him, he said, "no can do as of now. We have other problems to worry about now." (paraphrased from Raj Chengappa).

A fourth leader unilaterally pulled back on what he deemed offensive/proactive measures. Then let a slow cooking of the enemy happen.

A fifth leader unilaterally pulled back on what he deemed offensive/proactive measures and was accused of being a CIA agent. He filed a lawsuit in NY, and lost because of technicalities. Did nt even care for the slow cooking.

We have had too many decisive leaders, man. Nehru was indeed a pauper on decisionmaking .

[nachiket]

Look at the difference in attitudes towards Mountbatten between Patel and Nehru. That snake Mountbatten was trying for "Special Status" for Hyderabad and Patel rightly viewed him as an obstacle in the path of securing India's territory and interests. Nehru on the other hands actually says "..we miss you here" ! after trying to placate him and the British by saying We won't declare war onlee...rest assured onlee. Nehru didn't seem to have got out of the colonial mindset and somehow thought he was accountable to mountbatten and his country rather than the Indian people.

[Stan_Savljevic]

Boss, you should read the full letter instead of depending on my short summaries. In fact, you should read all of Nehru's communications during that era .

[devesh]

Devesh, every leader is like that. They have the worries that you and I dont have .

One other leader went on bus to Lahore, brought musharaff to agra, all the while when Kargil was cooking up. Then he unilaterally imposed a constraint of not crossing the LoC and with too many losses the Army/AF cleared the mess. Then, an attack on the Parliament happened, he pushed soldiers to the LoC and kept em on a state of high alert for 8-9 months. Then pulled them back in because the surprise was lost, the Army was getting pissed with the high alert mode, etc. Talk about decisive. I would call it Grade A decisive, if you ask me .

Another leader famously said "no action is also action." Even more decisive indeed .

A third leader famously slept himself on the dais more often than not, and when the nukular files were brought to him, he said, "no can do as of now. We have other problems to worry about now." (paraphrased from Raj Chengappa).

A fourth leader unilaterally pulled back on what he deemed offensive/proactive measures. Then let a slow cooking of the enemy happen.

A fifth leader unilaterally pulled back on what he deemed offensive/proactive measures and was accused of being a CIA agent. He filed a lawsuit in NY, and lost because of technicalities. Did nt even care for the slow cooking.

We have had too many decisive leaders, man. Nehru was indeed a pauper on decisionmaking .

1. that leader first tested the nuke as soon as he could. that leader first showed the Pakis who was the boss in a conflict that spanned months. that leader didn't back down in the face nuclear grand standing.

2. this leader had to deal with the beggars bowl that was put in his hand b/c of 45 years of sub-optimal policies first implemented under Nehru. this leader also had to deal with a secession crisis due to the "too clever for own good" politics of a certain daughter of Nehru. this leader also had to deal with the convergence of interests between US, Pakistan, PRC, and the broader Global Jihadism all on the issue of Kashmir. this leader also had to deal with a lack of "mass appeal" b/c of his own persona, something the Great Leader Nehru never lacked. this leader also had to deal with the fact that he didn't have all his political rivals/detractors systematically eliminated by another regime.

3. belongs in the list of foolish/delusional activities masquerading as "great" wisdom.

4. foolish and reckless. the consequences weren't predicted back then. in hindsight, easy to give credit. but given the info he had then, it was a blunder. it still is a blunder. "presence" of covert elements is useful in keeping tabs on the flow of info and the on the various power elements in the enemy state. it was a disastrous move.

5. never said he was a "decisive" leader. as such, too small a time in PM'ship to really matter.

[Stan_Savljevic]

2. this leader had to deal with the beggars bowl that was put in his hand b/c of 45 years of sub-optimal policies first implemented under Nehru.

And Nehru had an akshaya patra in his hand, hainji?!

3. belongs in the list of foolish/delusional activities masquerading as "great" wisdom.

I am telling ya one thing that H.D. Deve Gowda was no bumbling idiot as a PM. None of the Indian PMs were bumbling, they could nt have been PMs if they were in the first place. Pop wisdom aka conventional grandstanding is that one of them has been an idiot, another is a mouse, etc. Fact is, they were/are nt. People who dont understand complicated realities have the itching need to explain things to themselves by two syllable phrases. That is pop wisdom for you.

There are no small PMships and long PMships. IKG was a PM for a short time too, so was Shastri. VP Singh's was short too, he did the most useful thing by emancipating OBCs and implementing Mandal Commission recommendations even if it was/is protested badly then/now.

[brihaspati]

The accession of Hyderabad is a most curious incident indeed. Depending on whom one asks - we can have a different version of events. The above sequence of summaries reminded me of a similar summary provided in chapter 7 of a PhD thesis by Uma T, and available from the
shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in

site. [Title
6-Apr-2011 Accession of hyderabad state to the Indian union - A study of the political and pressure groups: 1945 - 1948 by Uma T, and under supervisor K.S.S. Seshan.

I am quoting here in full :

In 1947, when the British handed over power to India in New Delhi, the Nizam actually declared himself independent. The idea of acceding to India or even to Pakistan was contrary to his concept of his State's power and dignity, and the state was, in his view, inseparable from himself. Osman Ali Khan even rejected the advice of his own constitutional advisors, including Walter Monckton, a close friend of Lord Louis Mountbatten who hoped to ensure that Hyderabad enjoyed a high status in the Indian Union. Thus he asserted an Independence, which was not justified by historical evidence or by his actual position. The Nizam declared through a firman that Hyderabad would remain independent and not join the Constituent Assembly. Kasim Razvi unfurled the Asafia Flag and declared the flag was the emblem of the suzerainty of God on earth and exhorted the Muslims to defend it to the last drop of their blood. Even the Deccan Chronicle of June 24, 1947 reported,
"His Exalted Highness will assume Sovereign status and powers on or about August 15, 1947, by which time it is expected that the Indian and Pakistan areas would have assumed the status of Dominions of the British Common Wealth it is learnt"6
' The article published on on 15lh August, 1947 was reprinted in Deccan Chronicle on 15* August 1997. p2.

By August 15, 1947, the fate of Hyderabad remained uncertain. Kasim Razvi in his speeches and statements asserted that Hyderabad was always independent and never subject to British paramountacy and therefore it had no obligation to join the Indian Union. Any number of proposals made by the Government of India were rejected by the Nizam, Razvi and Laik Ali, the Prime Minister. Negotiations continued for months till a Standstill Agreement was signed in November 19477. The Government of India made it clear that this was only an interim government that must eventually lead to accession and a responsible government. But this transitory arrangement was misused and abused by the Nizam and Razvi to gain time to strengthen the state armed forces and Razakkars with modern weapons. Even a proposal for an Assembly with 40% representation to Muslims who were only 13% of the population was not acceptable.

Ever since the Standstill Agreement was signed a number of delegations had visited Delhi for negotiations. One such delegation arrived in Delhi on 22nd May 1948, and after discussions with the State's Ministry left for Hyderabad on 26th May. Laik Ali, the Prime Minister of Nizam accepted the principle of overriding legislation by the Government of India and proposed to increase the strength of the Hyderabad army although he denied it later. He also carried with him an invitation from the Nizam to Nehru to visit Hyderabad. Nehru sent a telegram to the Nizam in reply to that. It read
"I greatly appreciate your invitation to visit Hyderabad. As I told your Prime Minister, my many preoccupations make it practically impossible for me to leave New Delhi. However, if the negotiations now in progress, between the Government of India and Your Exalted Highness' government result in the certainty of a mutually satisfactory settlement, I shall be happy to give priority to a visit to your capital over other matters."8

7 Details of Standstill Agreement are mentioned in the earlier chapter 8 S.Gopal, Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume VI, New Delhi, 1972.p.p.223-224.

Jawaharlal Nehru wrote a series of letter to several prominent persons connected with the security of Independent India and the latest political developments. Writing to Sardar Patel on 11th April 1948, he mentions about the visit of Nawab Ismail Khan, prominent leader of Muslim League in Uttar Pradesh, and the Nawab of Chattari. According to Nehru, they were very perturbed about the developments in Hyderabad. Sarojini Naidu suggested to them to go to Hyderabad and tell the Nizam how much his policy and specially the activities of Razakkars were injuring the Muslims of India as well as the Nizam himself. The attitude of prominent Indian Muslims including Mohamed Ismail of Madras who was the President of the Muslim League in India was that the Indian Union must take strong action in the situation, that Razvi should be brought to trial and that a democratic government should be established in Hyderabad State.9

In a letter to Sardar Patel, Nehru wrote,
" We do not want to impose our will on any state and it is our earnest desire to avoid conflicts and quarrels... We therefore concluded the Standstill Agreement with Hyderabad last year with the hope that in the course of year, the people's desires would be fulfilled. But no sooner the ink in which the agreement was signed was dry, the Hyderabad government violated the agreement. Hyderabad is the only state where so far there has been no change in the nature of the government... The Ittehad Muslemeen and its volunteers are committing violence on the people, trying to overawe and coerce them with bullets. The present state of affairs definitely cannot be allowed to go on." 10

In a speech at a secret session of the AICC, Bombay, on 16 April 1948, speaking of the policy on Hyderabad Nehru said,
9 Ibid pp213-214. 10 S.Gopal.ed. Selected Works of J.Nehru, Vol VI, Delhi 1972, p.p 214, 215

"I would like to assure the AICC that the Government of India are fully alive to the seriousness of the situation developing in Hyderabad State.... If the Nizam's government or the Razakkars take any aggressive action, the Government of India will certainly takes steps to safeguard the interest of the people concerned.""
Again speaking at a public meeting, in UthagaMandalam in the far south on 2nd June, 1948 Nehru stated,
"We have made it perfectly clear to Hyderabad that there will have to be a solution to this problem and that ultimately there must be accession. There is no other way, and it is not possible for Hyderabad to walk out of the Indian . Union. Responsible government is inevitable because in the modern world we cannot allow a feudal government as in Hyderabad to continue." l2

Writing to Vallabhai Patel on 6th June 1948 Nehru had stated a similar view:
"To come back to Hyderabad we have to view Military Action from the point of view of our present capacity as well as from the other consequences flowing from it. These consequences may well be far reaching to various parts of India as well as Pakistan.... I arrived at the conclusion therefore that Military Action should only be indulged in Hyderabad when the Hyderabad government or their Razakkars etc make it impossible for us to desist from it. Of course in such circumstances we have to take action because inaction may produce worse results"

Jawaharlal Nehru also took certain Interim Defence measures. There were instructions to Army commanders round about Hyderabad and to the local government concerned. The instructions were as follows,
" Ibid, p.p 217-218. 12 From the Hindu, 3rd June, 1948 p.2 13 S. Gopal. Ed., Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru vol. VI, New Delhi, 1972 p.227

"With the exception of articles of food, salt, medical stores and chlorine for purifying the water supply, all other articles should be denied entry into Hyderabad state and strict blockade should be maintained in regard to these other articles. In the case of any doubtful article, reference should be made to the Government of India." 14
On the other hand, Hyderabad was making frantic effort to purchase arms. For this purpose Major General El Edroos was sent to London and his mission was to get automatic weapons and anti tank guns. Major General El Edroos was the commander of the Hyderabad army. He makes his views very clear in the book he authored, Hyderabad Of The Seven Loaves. Even regarding the position of the Hyderabad army he writes, 14 Ibid, p.243
"I realized the hopeless situation which we were in and any clash by our troops with the advancing Indian army would have only led to ill feelings and probably harder terms of surrender. A copy of my plan was submitted to the Hyderabad Government. But the Government under the influence of the Prime Minister Mir Laiq Ali returned the copy with the remarks that he was the best authority in this vital matter and he was to hold the Indian army at bay for about three months and by that time, help from Pakistan would come. He found it almost impossible for Hyderabad to purchase arms and ammunition from abroad as Hyderabad was not recognized as an independent country. Even if arms and ammunition were purchased from Europe or Middle East, it would be impossible to import them into Hyderabad. Bombay, Madras and other seaports were all closed to Hyderabad traffic. And it was next to impossible to get them through Goa due to the land route between Goa and Hyderabad being watched by the Indian authorities. But the Hyderabad Government totally ignored the clauses in the Standstill Agreement."15

The task of K.M.Munshi who was appointed the Agent General of the Government of India in Hyderabad was no bed of roses. He had to contend with the Trinity who were ruling the destinies of Hyderabad at that time - Mir Laik Ali, Nawab Moin Nawab Jung and Kasim Razvi who made no secret of their hostility to Munshi16.
The leaders of Ittehad were delivering speeches that there would be a bloodbath in the whole of South India if accession to the Union were effected. Kasim Razvi also made many irresponsible speeches. He threatened,
"If the Indian Union venture to enter Hyderabad, the invaders will see the burning everywhere of the bodies of one crore and sixty-five lakhs. The Muslims will not spare others when we ourselves are not allowed to exist."17
With the atrocities continuing unabated, the Government of India issued a White Paper on Hyderabad on 26 July 1948. Sardar Patel declared in the Constituent Assembly that Hyderabad had become an ulcer in the heart of India and this ulcer had to be operated. The White Paper made it unequivocally clear and without mincing words that
"The Government of India cannot afford to be a helpless spectator of orgies of misrule in Hyderabad. If the law and

15 El Edroos, Hyderabad Of Seven Loaves P.P. 134-135.The major sounded quite prophetic during the days of discussion on Standstill Agreement with the Nizam. When asked how long the Nizam's army could hold out against an attack by the Indian army he replied "Not more than four days". Narendra Luther, Memories Of A City, 1995 p. 324 16 K.M. Munshi born in 1887 was a leading lawyer in Bombay and later at the Supreme Court. He founded the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan with branches all over the country. According to N.G. Ranga he had a hard task with a Nizam who never bent his knee before any but a Viceroy.
From the article titled "Unholy Terror "by K.M.Munshi, which appeared in Deccan Chronicle, Aug 15, 1997 p.3

order situation there, which already shows signs of collapse, further deteriorates and thereby imperils peace and good order in India, the Government of India would unquestionably be involved." l8

It is quite clear that Jawaharlal Nehru was keeping Lord Mountbatten informed of the developments regarding the Hyderabad issue. In his letter dated, August 29th
1948, he wrote,
"...We have been having a very difficult time here and I have felt more than ever the weight of responsibility that has been cast upon me. Grave decisions have to be made by us and the alternatives between which we have to choose are equally undesirable. Also as often in life, we search frantically for the lesser evil... Hyderabad has been a running sore for a long time, but now it has become an intolerable nuisance or something much worse ...All this leads to the conclusion that some military action must be taken fairly soon and fairly swiftly against Hyderabad, if we are to save a deteriorating situation ...Please rest assured that whatever the provocation, we are not going to declare war against anybody. But we may well have to take what we call Police Action against Hyderabad State in the near future... we miss you here."19

On 10th September 1948, the Nizam appealed to the UNO to intervene. The Government of India was prepared for this move of the Nizam as it is indicated in a letter of Nehru to Vallabhai Patel on 23rd July 1948. He says

"You are aware of the fact that there is every chance of Hyderabad State Government referring their dispute with us to the United Nations. We should not wait for this reference and then think about it. We should therefore take immediate steps to prepare our answer and to clear up our own minds

18 V. H. Desai, Vandemataram loJanaganmana: Saga of Hyderabad "s Freedom Struggle, Bombay, 1990 p. 167 19 S.Gopal ^elected Works of J.Nehru, Vol. VI New Delhi, 1972.p.p.22I-222.

as to the attitude we should take. I hope therefore the States Ministry is thinking about this and preparing for it."20

In September 1948, the Nizam sent a delegation to the Security Council with a complaint that the situation between Hyderabad and India had become grave and constituted a threat to peace. The delegation left via Karachi. It was now time for decisive action by the Indian Government. On September 10, 1948 Nehru issued an ultimatum, "With great regret we intend to occupy Secunderabad." The same day England evacuated British subjects from Hyderabad to return and ordered all British officers to resign from the Hyderabad Army, so that they will not be forced to fight against an erstwhile British dominion (India).21

Jawaharlal Nehru in his letter to V.K.Krishna Menon dated, 29th August, 1948, clearly pointed out that a military action against Hyderabad was becoming a must. He stated thus:

"I am convinced that it is impossible to arrive at any solution of the Hyderabad problem by settlement or peaceful negotiation. Military action becomes essential, we call it as you have called it Police Action...The reported reference of the Hyderabad issue to the U.N. produces a certain complication, but that is hardly reason for our holding up any action that would otherwise be justified. There is no point in holding it up because, if the U.N. goes into this matter, it will be a somewhat prolonged affair as it usually is. A prolonged postponement would certainly have very bad results in many ways."

22 S. Gopal, ed., "Letters to Premiers of Provinces" in Selected works of J.Nehru Volume VII, New Delhi 1972, p. 195
Ian Austin, City of Legends, The Story of Hyderabad, Calcutta, 1992 p. 188 22 S. Gopal.op.ci7 p.223.


It is interesting to note that Nehru for a long time was reluctant to solve the Hyderabad Problem at one go by Police Action in September 1948. Durga Das, a former editor of the Hindustan Times, narrates in his memoirs titled 'India - from Curzon to Nehru',

"There were days of tenseness and high drama in New Delhi particularly in the Cabinet. Pt. Nehru still wanted a peaceful solution, for fear of Pakistan's reaction while Patel was pressing for Police Action soon after Mountbatten left. The hurdle for Patel was removed when Mountbatten who was trying for special status for Hyderabad left on June 22, 1948. After Mountbatten left when Nizam still talked of further agreement, Patel publicly declared, "Agreement has gone to England". Twice Sardar Patel had fixed the Zero Hour for action against Hyderabad and on each occasion he was compelled to cancel it. When the Zero Hour was fixed for the third time (13th Sept) he was determined to see it through and he announced that the army had already moved into Hyderabad and nothing could be done to halt it. Nehru was worried whether it would provoke retaliation by Pakistan." 23

On September 12lh, Jinnah died and Nehru was sure that there would be no interference from Pakistan.

Since the Nizam and his government refused to disband the Razakkars and other private armies and to facilitate the return of Indian troops to Secunderabad, where they used to be stationed before, in order to restore law and order Indian troops entered the Hyderabad Territory at 4:00 am on 13th September from three sides, West, South and North.

23 How Hyderabad Escaped the Fate of Kashmir" in Hyderabad Watch at http://www.Hvderabad.com" p p 1 & 2


Nehru held a question-answer session at the press conference in New Delhi on 10th September 1948, Three days before the Police action. He followed it with his own statements. One of the most important aspects he stressed was the Razakkar menace.

"There is no doubt that the state of affairs in Hyderabad has been very bad and progressively worsening. Any person who does not openly submit to any demands from the Razakkars plays with his life. You might have in mind at least two cases - that of a young Muslim editor of a paper who was shot down; of another young Muslim, you may have noticed, his hands were cut off. So you see the state of affairs in Hyderabad is sinking into a state of barbarity."24

In his speech in Bombay on 15th September 1948, Nehru explained that Police Action was initiated to end terror.

"Our first year of freedom has seen much sorrow and suffering through out the country. During the critical period, the Father of our Nation was snatched away from our midst leaving us in deep anguish and sorrow....In Hyderabad our army is doing a magnificent job. They are rapidly advancing on all fronts. This is an indication of our strength. I hope the operation will end soon..." 25

The invasion of Hyderabad by the Indian army was called by different names. Popularly it was called Police Action and the operation was named "Operation Polo".

Hyderabad had a large army with a tradition of hiring mercenary force. It comprised of the manager of Sarf - I - Khas lands, the Paigah Nobles, Arabs, Guards and Razakkars who were themselves about 200,000. They were commanded by Major

24 S.Gopal, op.cit P.p.234-235. '
25 S. Gopal, ed., "Hyderabad H-Police Action in Hyderabad" in Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru , Vol. 7, New Delhi, 1972, p. 244.

Since the earlier summary more or less matches this sequence from the thesis by Uma, I have reproduced the relevant portion from the thesis and emboldened one part that strikes a contrarian note in this overall reportage on what JLN apparently felt/said/ordered.

The second curious angle is that JLN highlights the legitimization of army action by citing two Muslim-on-Muslim atrocities.

What is curious to note is that the bolded part does not fit or even contradicts the general impression created by the sequence of quotes from JLN's letters. So I would next quote from Durga Das's writings which might be interesting as it gives another angle to the whole episode.

[devesh]

aha....so now, the debate moves from Nehru's blunders in Kashmir and the inability to empathize with "hindu" plight while bending over backwards where the "muslim" is concerned, to Mandal/Sachar/etc. way to move the goal posts as and when you like....

what "data" do you have to prove HD was not an idiot? I want to see data. isn't that what you were insisting on Nehru? observing behavior and concluding from that is somehow "not understanding complicated realities"....well, where is the data on HD?

as for OBC reservation being "most useful", since you've commented on AP naxal issues before, please do comment on the OBC's in AP. not sure about the rest of the country, but in AP, OBC's are wealthier and politically more powerful than either the "forward castes" or the "backward castes". AP is one state where the OBC reservation has strengthened the influence of an already dominant class.

I am not making a case "against" OBC reservation. I'm sure the situation is complicated in different regions of the country. but in certain regions, the OBC reservation did not lead to the "rise" of a "backward" class. it only solidified an already strong group.

[brihaspati]

Pt. Dwarka Prasad Mishra, the then Home Minister of Madhya Pradesh, writes (Living an Era) that according to Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, a Central Cabinet Minister at that time, “When a Cabinet meeting had ended after deciding to resort to Police action, Nehru sent for him (Mukherjee) and after expressing displeasure for his support to Patel in resorting to Police action, warned him that Pakistan would retaliate by invading West Bengal and that Calcutta might be bombed. Mukherjee had then replied that the people of West Bengal and Calcutta had enough patriotism to suffer and sacrifice and would rejoice to hear that (General) J.N. Chaudhuri, a Bengali (who was to lead the Police action) had conquered Hyderabad.”

The then British Chief of Indian Army, Sir Rob Lockhart, had told Nehru that Pakistan would invade India and Hyderabad too had built up a strong military forces under his friend Gen. El Droos so that it could resist Indian forces for many months.

The Police action had indeed been postponed again and again at Nehru’s behest for four months. It was slated for May, 1948, (keeping the monsoon in scope). Mountbatten did not want it while he was still the Governor General and had supposedly been warning Nehru that there would be a Muslim uprising in India against it. His Tory friend, Sir Walter Monckton, had become the legal adviser to the Nizam and was part of the group running the negotiations with India. Mountbatten left India on June 22, 1948. After Mountbatten’s exit, when the Nizam still talked of further agreement, Patel declared, “Agreement has gone to England.”

Durga Das says : “Twice the zero hour was fixed by Patel,who as Home Minister, was to authorise the Police action, and on each occasion, he was compelled to cancel it under heavy political pressure. The zero hour was then fixed for the third time (for September 13) and Patel was determined to see it through. Once again a hitch developed at the eleventh hour. The Nizam appealed personally to C. Rajagopalachari (who had taken over as Governor-General from Mountbatten), who conferred with Nehru and they both decided to call off action again. Patel was informed and the question of drafting a suitable reply to the Nizam arose. Defence Secretary H.M. Patel and V.P. Menon were summoned and they exhausted three hours in consultation and in formulating a reply. When the reply was finally ready, Patel coolly announced that the Army had already moved into Hyderabad and nothing could be done to halt it. Defence Minister Baldev Singh and Patel were of one mind and had resolved to bring the Nizam to his senses and not yield to any further counsel of weakness....I kept a tab on this midnight meeting through telephonic connection with Patel’s residence. Not unexpectedly Nehru and C.R. were at once agitated and worried whether it would provoke retaliation by Pakistan. Within twenty-four hours, the action was successfully underway and there were smiles all around.”

In fact, CR wanted to postpone it further as a gesture to Pakistan as Jinnah had died the previous night. But Patel refused.

I do not have Durga Das's book with me right now, which belongs to my private collection is desh. I remember the ref and searched for it : one quote appears in http://deshgujarat.com/2008/04/21/sarda ... lish-text/. I have omitted the other parts in that web-article which I am not sure of as to sources. People who have access to the two texts referred here - please look up and post. The other facts I have retained here - are supportable by documents.

[ramana]

Can you give a proper link to the above source?

Also can you comment on Mountbatten's behavior? Gen Lockhart's advice about the Nizam's forces and the repeated stalling by INC/GOI senior figures.

So all in all above accounts show that patel was forceful and decisive. It was not because he was empowered by JLN as stated before.

[brihaspati]

Durga Das was a well known journalist and close to both Azad and Sardar. I was pointed to his works by another veteran old-guard who knew him well. I was told by the latter - that some "sections" dubbed DD as a Patelite, but he himself could vouch for the man's integrity. I was interested in the Hyderabad story from various reasons - the backdrop of Telengana movement, the sudden radical militant stance compared to one year previous of the congress elite, and there were personal family connections through some key senior family related figures involved in the action. This old-guard supported DD's version [he had no reason to be JLN hater and was a close dost of King of Love and I would trust him for I was a confidante for such stories for things that were only confirmed long after he passed away]. So I don't know really who was really speaking the entire truth. Very few people survive who would be involved on spot - and public speeches need not reflect underlying political behaviour away from public gaze.

Or is it a fit candidate for Kurosawa's Rashoman?

Added : ramana ji, I don't have any electronic edition. I will look tmrw from my uni lib sources. The edition I had at desh was from Harper Collins, 2000. India from Curzon to Nehru and After. Durga Das.

[Stan_Savljevic]

The accession of Hyderabad is a most curious incident indeed. Depending on whom one asks - we can have a different version of events. The above sequence of summaries reminded me of a similar summary provided in chapter 7 of a PhD thesis by Uma T, and available from the shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in site.

Yes, thats the thesis. If you were so curious on the source, you should have asked, instead of implicitly attributing complicated motives as if I was trying to hide something from you. The Durga Das comment was there in my post too.

Curious event, indeed, it is. Can we take a look at the review of this Durga Das' book from amazon? For the link nazis: http://www.amazon.com/India-Curzon-Nehr ... 817223385X

The memoirs of a prominent Indian journalist whom the British found reliable while valuing his nationalist contacts. Clearly a man of greater talents than he displays here, Das's manner is brighteyed to the' point of banality. He does take a critical view of Nehru as poor administrator, economic dilettante, "superb performer"; a caustic view of Indira Gandhi as a sort of reluctant Minerva; a favorable view of Shastri and a surprisingly mild one of Krishna Menon. . . fleshed out with interesting captions on their styles of work. Das had privileged access to major hearings, commissions (Lee, Simon) and key parliamentary events. He spells out British divide-and-rule policies and the Congress Party's control by native capitalists. There are impressions of viceroys from Curzon to Mountbatten, forgettable anecdotes about Gandhi, and valuable candids of Moslem leader Jinnah, to whom Das was close in the early days ("I will have nothing to do with this pseudo-religious approach to politics," he remarked in 1920). The post-independence sections feature capsules on development and foreign policy; late-'60's popular ferment is played down at the expense of Das's world-tours (he met with everyone from Khrushchev to Vermont Royster). For American readers, the book has the merit of putting newsreel figures in a colleagues-and-currents framework. Anyone with a special interest in India will want to read it.

Fits eminently with the theme of the Nehru bashers of this dhaaga. Anyone who can take a 1-D picture of Nehru is probably not doing justice to Nehru, but that has been my contention from the very beginning.

... but he himself could vouch for the man's integrity.

But dude, Sardar himself vouched for Nehru's integrity (see a paraphrased quote from Maniben in my post). Somehow this dhaaga feels eminently qualified to deride Nehru as a demon, devil, and what not (these are the very words used by eminent erudites of this dhaaga).

to move the goal posts as and when you like

Devesh, I am not moving any goal post unless of course if you dont get where the goal post and where the sewage is. The singular claim of mine has been to not take a 1-D view of people (esp former PMs) and show with examples how people who have been deemed as great stalwarts who could make no mistakes have indeed made many mistakes by the same very standards that are used to deride Nehru. If Nehru was indecisive, so was most other PMs including ABV and PVNR (those paragons of greatness and strategy). If Nehru was bumbling, so were most PMs. If Nehru did nt lack the depth in terms of foreign policy, ABV/MMS's pakistan policy and candle kissing should come for eminent criticism too. If Nehru was a demagogue, a greater demagogue was IG. If Nehru bent over backwards for Muslim/Christian interests, all in the name of secularism, ABV and BJP/NDA did nothing useful for the Hindus despite claiming to represent their interests. Can you show me a few good things that the BJP/NDA did for Hindus? Not that I can see. See, the same stick you use to beat Nehru can be reversed and beat ABV/NDA/PVNR with twice the venom. Get the point? Doubtful by all indications .

[Prem]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/opini ... .html?_r=1
Who’s the Decider?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

The more you travel around India, the more you notice just how lightly the hand of government rests on this country. Somehow, it all sort of works. The traffic does move, but, for the first time in all my years visiting India, I’ve started to wonder whether India’s “good enough” approach to government will really be good enough much longer.This isn’t just a theoretical matter. The air in India’s biggest cities is unhealthy. You rarely see a body of water here — a river, lake or pond — that is not polluted. The sheer crush of people — India will soon have more than China — on an unprotected environment really seems to be taking its toll. Without better governance, how will India avoid becoming an ecological disaster area in 10 years? Eventually the law of large numbers — 1.2 billion people — just starts to devour every minimalist step forward that India makes. India doesn’t need to become China, and isn’t going to. But it still needs to prove that its democracy can make and implement big decisions with the same focus, authority and stick-to-itiveness as China’s autocracy.

At a time when, from India to America, democracies have never had more big decisions to make, if they want to deliver better living standards for their people, this epidemic of not deciding is a troubling trend. It means that we are abdicating more and more leadership to technocrats or supercommittees — or just letting the market and Mother Nature impose on us decisions that we cannot make ourselves. The latter rarely yields optimal outcomes

[devesh]

Stan,
yes, ABV/BJP did do good for Hindus. and also the good that ABV/BJP did extends to Muslims/Christians and Sikhs. things like testing the nuke, Kargil, etc have proven to be good for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and all Muslims/Christians whose aspirations are tied to India. those whose aspirations and intentions are not tied, will never feel like any "good" was done to them. the aspiration of Hindus is the aspiration of India. and the good things done by ABV/BJP for the country were also good for Hindus.....

do you get it now? the "good" is good for everybody if it is "good" for the country.

[JwalaMukhi]

yes, ABV/BJP did do good for Hindus. and also the good that ABV/BJP did extends to Muslims/Christians and Sikhs. things like testing the nuke, Kargil, etc have proven to be good for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and all Muslims/Christians whose aspirations are tied to India. those whose aspirations and intentions are not tied, will never feel like any "good" was done to them. the aspiration of Hindus is the aspiration of India. and the good things done by ABV/BJP for the country were also good for Hindus.....

do you get it now? the "good" is good for everybody if it is "good" for the country.

Deveshji,
A quick question why should what good ADV/BJP did/do also helped others matter?, because I posit this logic below:

The % of people who suffered the Partition misery remains small when compared with people who did nt. Sure, they suffered the most and monumentally (I admit), but is it so hard to estimate numbers here? Was Nehru only responsible to the people who migrated across the Radcliffe line and not to the others who were looking forward to all the attendant garbage of a normal life? You can say what blasphemy, but if you sit in the hot-seat, these are judgment calls you will be forced to make because the resources are limited.

Per the above logic, since mostly India is still a majority made of hindus, the % of people who benefit by the doings of ABV/BJP far exceed the people who may not So, why should there be any worries about % of people who are lesser in number?. Since there is limited resources why should it be not used in such a fashion as to the sole benefit of majorities, because it would pass the above logic of %ages. I am not saying this, but I am using the logic that has been gained by following this thread.

[brihaspati]

Stan,
I have respected your distaste for "ji" and dropped it - with apologies. I am not your dude, never will be - and I do not approve of your attaching such endearments in addressing me.

What I have written is that your summary appears to "match" Uma T's thesis and hence I have quoted in full. Within that short sentence or two - you have found "complicated motives" being attributed to you? You must have a very colourful imagination. You did not quote the source, so I had no way of knowing if you had an alternative source which matched this one. Your pointer that people should read the full letters instead of the summary implied that you have read them in full and summarized from them.

What is worth noting is that you did mention Durga Das - as summarized by Uma, but not the fuller quote which is available. I remember this passage from the original and hence it struck me when I read the reference in your summary - and that vaguely I remembered having seen this summary somewhere that had cut out the parts that would be more critical to JLN and CR. This led me to Uma - as the name appeared in my notes on the subject.

I have not criticized you or your summary - merely laid out two versions of the same story. As for Amazon review - well - yes reviews are reviews, and there would be many like you feeling an innate anger at their idol being denigrated while still reluctant to shed the advantages of pretending absolute neutrality.

The question is whether Durga Das's version is the true version or not, and that should be based on the book itself and independent research. The review is a give away because it starts off with the plethora of adjectives typical of hidden political outrage - "banalities...." etc. These are great words for politically motivated critiques because they do not have to be and cannot be justified. Such words are pure literary opinions - beyond even the "factual" basis you insist or denounce based on whether it supports or does not support your own political predilections.

You could have shown the honesty of quoting the relevant passage from Das fully - couldn't you? Or you had to drop it because it would be explicitly critical and skeptical of JLN's decisive and prime-mover role you are seeking to establish? I am sure you knew about the more detailed passage - because you insist on others fully researching on something before talking about it. Problem is you are assuming that I am insisting on some particular version as the unadulterated truth. I mentioned Rashomon - hinting of the many different versions of the same incident indulged in by different sources for many different reasons.

If you are really that sincere about there not being black and white - and no absolute truths, I am sure you will not resent the fact that there are alternative voices who look at the same stories you are selecting that all appear to be geared towards establishing a particular image of JLN - in slightly different versions that challenge such image creation attempts.

It wouldn't have mattered really - and JLN is not important as an issue. The problem is about the way in which possible reality of situations - historical reality itself - is getting distorted in trying to clean up or idolize. The fact would remain important - that if there was such duplicity or pretension - one face in public statements or posturing and another in private, and it did have possible effects on important decisions and outcomes, then it should be explored and analyzed. If for nothing else but for future decisonmaking and selection of decisionmakers.

[devesh]

I wasn't restricting the "good" of BJP/ABV to "hindus". I said that the "good" done by ABV/BJP for the country was "good" for all people. for anybody whose personal aspirations don't obstruct Indian aspirations, or whose personal aspirations don't involve the subversion and destruction of the Indian Civilizational ethos, the "good" done by one party/politician for country, automatically translates into "good" done for them. this is my logic. If "good" is done for country, it necessarily means that "good" was done for all the people who abide by the above criteria.

and of course, we'll differ on what "Indian civilizational ethos" is: but that is to be expected. my definition includes the exclusion of any special privileges for ideological/"religious" forces emerging outside the nation. especially if the given forces show a historical trend of subverting the cultures that they conquer and selling them off to imperial forces on whose bidding they entered the "space" that was marked for conquest.

if such forces target the indigenous for conquest by various tactics such as denigrating and bashing the culture of the indigenous. then, the indigenous has the right to give back with interest. if violence is taken up by those forces, then the indigenous has every right to retaliate for self defense. and most importantly, the indigenous has every right to question the validity of such ideologies and take the ideological battle ground to the origin of such ideas, wherever they might be, even if such forces are cloaked under the curtain of "we are religious people onlee".

[gakakkad]

who is Uma T ? (I reckon the t does not stand for Thurman ? )

[brihaspati]

Well here is another review of the same book - from the IndiaEU forum - on occasion of bringing out a Polish version of the same:

http://www.indiaeu.eu/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=30

India from Curzon to Nehru and After

India’s third President, Dr. Zakir Husain has written the foreword to the book by Durga Das and described it as “Indian history seen from the inside.” The author, in the President’s words, “grew up along with the movement which culminated in freedom; from 1918 onward, he was at the centre of things.”

The book chronicles the historical panorama, spreading from the fledging years of the freedom movement beginning with Curzon and embracing the succeeding pro-consuls of Britain on the one hand and the torchbearers of the freedom movement – from Tilak to Gandhi to Nehru --- on the other and the years that followed 15th August, 1947, the great watershed of Indian history.

President V.V. Giri, India’s fourth President, released the seminal book on November 14, 1969, tenth anniversary of INFA, at a glittering function at New Delhi’s prestigious India International Centre. Those present included Vice President of India, G.S. Pathak, Home Minister Y.B. Chavan, Defence Minister Swaran Singh, Food Minister, Jagjivan Ram and Chairman of the Press Council of India Justice Ayyangar. The book was published by Collins of London and John Day Company of New York. Indian editions, both hard cover and paper back, have been brought out subsequently by Rupa.

During his 50 years of journalism, Durga Das held key positions – first as Editor of the Associated Press of India (forerunner of the Press Trust of India) at New Delhi and Simla, subsequently as the first Indian Special Representative of the Statesman with the Government of India, then as Chief Editor of the Hindustan Times and, finally, as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of India News and Feature Alliance. Scarcely anything of political importance took place in Delhi or Simla, the twin seats of the British Raj, and later in Nehru’s Delhi, without his being a close and discerning observer, reporter and interpreter.

He travelled widely and made three round the world tours in 1957, 1959 and 1967. Importantly, his visits were marked by meetings with top world leaders. In 1957 and 1959, he met among others Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, Chancellor Adenauer, Prime Minister Macmillan and Premier Ikeda. In 1967, he undertook another world tour to determine India’s role in the future and met President Johnson and Premier Sato and shared his impressions with Indira Gandhi on return to New Delhi. The New York Times honoured him uniquely. It published the news of his death on May 17, 1974 as a top item across two columns with his photograph, devoting almost two-thirds of a column to his obituary headlined: Chronicler of the Freedom Movement.

Durga Das knew intimately the nation’s leading figures: the Viceroys from Lord Chelmsford to Lord Mountbatton and politicians from Tilak and Gandhi to Jinnah, Nehru, Patel, Shastri, Morarji Desai and Indira Gandhi. The result is a fascinating and wholly absorbing contribution to the history of the twentieth century. This fast-moving, lively and independent account of politics and international affairs is, therefore, enriched by intimate, perceptive and far from uncritical sketches of the great leaders. Perhaps no other book reminds the reader so firmly that politics, even at its most exalted and dramatic, is about people. No one who is interested in India, in the history of British imperialism or in the realities of present-day Asia can neglect this goldmine of a book.

The book answers many important questions over which controversy rages even today. Symbollic of these issues is, for instance, the basic question: who conceded Pakistan. Writes Durga Das: “Some name one person, some the other. But in point of fact, there is no simple straight answer. Both the Congress and the Raj for their own reasons were keen on maintaining a united India. But both were walking the slippery path of winning the support of the third side of India’s power triangle: Muslims. Whitehall unconsciously first planted the seed of partition by conceding separate electorate and communal representation, in Minto’s words, to the Muslim “nation. …..Wavell almost succeeded in preserving the unity of India in co-operation with the Congress with his plan for a wartime coalition. But his effort was frustrated at the eleventh hour when Jinnah received the secret offer of “Pakistan on a platter” from his friends in Whitehall and in Delhi.

“Nehru, Patel and Prasad next acknowledged and endorsed Jinnah’s two-nation theory in March 1947, by advocating in a resolution adopted by the Congress Working Committee the division of the Punjab into Muslim-majority and Hindu-majority areas. This was done by the three without consulting Gandhi, who reacted sharply and considered this to be an hour of great humiliation. Patel was the first to accept the partition plan at the formal conference of national leaders convened by Mountbatten. Unknown at the time, Churchill played a key role in the creation of Pakistan. Attlee earnestly attempted to maintain a united India, however fragile its federal structure. But the compulsion of events went beyond the control of the main British and Congress actors in the final scene of the freedom drama. And destiny helped Jinnah.”

The memoirs running into 486 pages are in five books:

Book I - 1900-21 Political awakening

Book II - 1921-39 The Gandhian Revolution

Book III - 1939-47 Independence Dawns

Book IV - 1947-64 The Nehru Era

Book V - 1964-68 After Nehru What?



Why the Polish edition?

India-EU Council has decided to bring out a Polish edition of Durga Das’ seminal memoirs “India from Curzon to Nehru and After” to meet the increasing desire among the Polish people to know India better as an emerging global power. There is very little knowledge about India in Eastern Europe and more specially in Poland, the biggest new member State of the European Union. The Poles and others have so far only a stereotyped impression of India, its great poverty and cheap labour force. But the Poles are now eager to know not only about the India of today but also about India’s recent past, especially its historic struggle for freedom. Interest in India’s independence has been greatly stimulated by the major democratic changes that have taken place in Eastern Europe led by the Polish struggle and its Solidarity movement.


The President of the India-EU Council, Dr. Malgorzata Bonikowska has visited India several times during the past two years. She fell in love with the country and has read several books and literature on India. She was greatly impressed by Durga Das’ memoirs and felt that these needed to be translated into Polish and made available to the Poles to enable them to know modern India and its aspirations and dreams better. Unfortunately, the media in the EEC countries does not provide any in-depth information on India and the region. It merely reports the crisis situations (Benazir Bhutto’s assassination and Mumbai mayhem etc) as there is hardly any reliable or understandable source of information about the present or the past.


The India-EU Council earnestly believes that Eastern Europe and the Indian sub-continent should know each other better in order to build stronger political-economic and socio-cultural relations. In fact Poland is planning to launch a Polish Cultural Centre in Delhi in May. The project of translating Durga Das’ memoirs into Polish is supported by the Polish Foreign Ministry. Importantly, 2009 marks the 20th anniversary of major democratic changes in Eastern Europe, led by Poland. It is, therefore, a matter of satisfaction that the Polish edition on India’s chronicle of freedom is coincidentally being published this year. The India-EU Council also plans to launch a website India-EU Observer in cooperation with the Polish Foreign Ministry to promote better understanding and friendship between the two regions through media and educational projects.

Zakir Hussain, VV Giri, all Nehru bashers perhaps according to Stan's argument! Kya karen..!

Now should we rely on reviews at all?!!!

[brihaspati]

who is Uma T ? (I reckon the t does not stand for Thurman ? )

I don't know! Can be searched out on the link I gave perhaps -although it is just a ETD based in India, and only a repository.

[JwalaMukhi]

Deveshji,
Your point was clear to me earlier. Wish you had restricted it to majority, because earlier logic(not by you) has set a precedent of greater good by %ages.
By all accounts based on that logic, anything that was good for majority should be accepted as greater good.

What was the necessary for the indigenous to walk always the extra mile and be accomodative when ideas that pile against indigenous indulge in invoking logic to defend the indefensible. Well, was just trying to hold the mirror as to why logic (not by you) of understanding the actions due to restrictive compulsions are only invoked when the outcome is not favorable to majority? Why that logic is not uniformly applied? (Again not by you). Hence was asking why walk extra mile to prove what ABV/BJP did is for common good? Because people who applied the logic in earlier cases should be simply satisfied and understand actions of BJP/ABV if it met aspirations of larger % of populace.

[Sanku]

Deveshji,
Your point was clear to me earlier. Wish you had restricted it to majority, because earlier logic(not by you) has set a precedent of greater good by %ages.
By all accounts based on that logic, anything that was good for majority should be accepted as greater good.

Yes, strongly agree.

[ramana]

There is a term called "Creeping Determinism" to describe how people think its inevitable the events in hindsight. Its the opposite of the Islamist Force of History which is a forward projection of creeping determinism.

Another is Reconstruction

[Airavat]

Question answer session from the 1926 Council of States
ENLISTMENT IN THE INDIAN ARMY OF HINDU JATS FROM THE JULLUNDUR AND LAHORE DIVISIONS

The Honourable Rai Bahadur Lala Ram Saran Das, C.I.E. (Punjab: Non-Muhammadan): Is it a fact that in the Jullundur and Lahore Divisions of the Punjab the Hindu Jats can get enlistment in the Indian Army only with great difficulty?

The Honourable Mr. AH Ley (on behalf of His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief): Hindu Jats from the Jullundur and Lahore Divisions are eligible for service in the Indian Army. It is, however, a fact that, apart from those who are Dogras, Hindu Jats are not taken into the Army in large numbers from these two civil divisions.

Q: Will the Government kindly state what is the number at present in the Indian Army of Hindu Jats, Sikh Jats and Muslim Jats, recruited from Ambala Division, and from districts in the Jullundur and Lahore Divisions? Is this number of recruits in the Indian Army, from the different sections of the Jat community in proportion to their respective populations?

A: The information desired by the Honourable Member in the first part of this question is not available, as our statistics do not show the numbers recruited by districts or divisions but by provinces. With regard to the second part, I may state that the extent to which the different castes and classes are enlisted in the Indian Army depends more on their suitability for service as soldiers, than on their total numbers.

Q: Will the Government kindly lay on the table a statement showing the number of soldiers in the Indian Army, recruited from each of the Hindu castes and tribes in each district of the Punjab?

A: I regret that I am unable to furnish the Honourable Member with the information which he desires, since as 1 have just stated in reply to the previous question, our recruiting statistics are not compiled to show the classes and castes by districts but by provinces as a whole: I lay on the table, however, a statement showing the total number of the various Hindu castes and tribes (other than Sikhs) serving in the Indian Army on the 1st January 1925, from the whole of the Punjab Province and I trust that this information will suffice for the Honourable Member's purpose.

DOGRAS (Brahmans 691, Rajputs 8191, Jats 739, other castes of Dogras 793) total: 10,414

PUNJABI HINDUS (Brahmans 604, Rajputs 1027, Jats 4941, Ahirs 1795, Gujars 387) total: 8754

RECRUITMENT OF MUHYAL BRAHMANS OF THE RAWALPINDI DIVISION FOR THE INDIAN ARMY

Q: Is it a fact that in the Rawalpindi Division for some time past the Muhyal Brahmans cannot now get enlistment in the Army? Will the Government kindly state why this is so?

A: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part does not arise. The Honourable Member will be interested to learn that there are now more than half as many more Muhyal Brahmans serving in the Indian Army than was the case before the war.

RECRUITMENT OF PUNJABI HINDU REGIMENTS FOR THE INDIAN ARMY

Q: Is it a fact that in the Indian Army raised from the Punjab, we have regiments known under the names of "Punjabi Musalmans " and "Sikhs"? Is it a fact that in the regiments known as the "Punjabi Musalmans ", there are usually recruits from several Muslim castes and tribes, and similarly in the " Sikh " regiments there are recruits from several Sikh castes and tribes? Is it also a fact that there is in the Indian Army raised from the Punjab no regiment known under the name of " Punjabi Hindus ", and consequently Hindu Jats in the Jullundur and Lahore Divisions, Muhyal Brahmins and Hindu Khattris in the Rawalpindi, Lahore and Jullundur Divisions, and several other Hindu fighting classes in different parts of the province cannot get enlistment in the Indian Army? Will the Government kindly state why no " Punjabi Hindu " regiments as such are raised in the Punjab?

A: There is no regiment known under the name of "Punjabi Mussulmans". There is one regiment known as Sikhs, namely, the 11th Sikhs, but only three of its battalions are composed exclusively of Sikhs. Government do not propose to raise a "Punjabi Hindu" regiment as such.

[Arjun]

Many have noted the recent pronouncement from the US Commission on International Religious Freedom that talks about Pakistani textbooks having promoted hatred for Hindus. I see this as a significant development despite the low personal opinion I have about this Commision (I fully expect a hit-job on India sometime within the next couple of years from this agency ).

Irrespective, the Commission's evaluation raises some interesting questions. Many are aware of the hatred for pagans / kaffirs that are promoted by the religious books / preachings of the Abrahamics. One simple example would be the Bible declaring idolatry as a sin - the religion most associated with idolatry is obviously Hinduism. Another would be terming India a land of Satan-worshippers, a favorite phrase of EJ preachers.

This raises two questions-

1. Is it valid to use the same approach to evaluating religious teachings as has been done with school teaching?

2. If the answer is yes, is the implication that intolerance propagated through school text-books can be questioned but the same intolerance imparted through religious ideologies / books is above all questioning ? I would think the impact of the latter on impressionable minds is at least as much if not far, far greater than that of the former.

A discussion on these aspects would be quite revealing !

Mods, please let me know if this post is more appropriate for any other thread & I shall move it.

[svenkat]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... andal.html

I dont know whether this thread is appropriate for the newsitem.Please read the atrocities of a christist preacher from Coimbatore.

[Arjun]

Justice Markandey Katju clarifies

If Justice Markandey Katju's ravings exemplify anything it is this - there is nothing quite as dangerous to society as a committed leftist attaining a position of power anywhere: whether it be in in leading a government or leading the Indian Press Council, or administering an internet forum. The leftist propensity to impose their own skewed definition of a moral compass on everything that moves can only be described as mindboggling !

Just witness how Katju castigates Indian media for not being 'progressive' and then his definition of what constitutes 'progressiveness' leaves one in no doubt as to where his sympathies lie !! And this is the same guy who congratulated the Pakistani media recently for being appropriately 'progressive'.

[Manny]

http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-India-In ... 881&sr=1-1

Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines [Hardcover]

Book Description
Publication Date: July 1, 2011
(i) Islamic radicalism linked with Pakistan (ii) Maoists and Marxist radicals supported by China via intermediaries such as Nepal (iii) Dravidian and Dalit identity separatism being fostered by the West in the name of human rights. This book focuses on the third: the role of U.S. and European churches, academics, think-tanks, foundations, government and human rights groups in fostering separation of the identities of Dravidian and Dalit communities from the rest of India. The book is the result of five years of research, and uses information obtained in the West about foreign funding of these Indian-based activities. The research tracked the money trails that start out claiming to be for education,A" "human rights," empowerment training,A" and leadership training,A" but end up in programs designed to produce angry youths who feel disenfranchised from Indian identity. The book reveals how outdated racial theories continue to provide academic frameworks and fuel the rhetoric that can trigger civil wars and genocides in developing countries. The Dravidian movement's 200-year history has such origins. Its latest manifestation is the Dravidian ChristianityA" movement that fabricates a political and cultural history to exploit old faultlines. The book explicitly names individuals and institutions, including prominent Western ones and their Indian affiliates. Its goal is to spark an honest debate on the extent to which human rights and other empowermentA" projects are cover-ups for these nefarious activities.

[shiv]

http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-India-In ... 881&sr=1-1

Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines [Hardcover]

Book Description
Publication Date: July 1, 2011
(i) Islamic radicalism linked with Pakistan (ii) Maoists and Marxist radicals supported by China via intermediaries such as Nepal (iii) Dravidian and Dalit identity separatism being fostered by the West in the name of human rights. This book focuses on the third: the role of U.S. and European churches, academics, think-tanks, foundations, government and human rights groups in fostering separation of the identities of Dravidian and Dalit communities from the rest of India. The book is the result of five years of research, and uses information obtained in the West about foreign funding of these Indian-based activities. The research tracked the money trails that start out claiming to be for education,A" "human rights," empowerment training,A" and leadership training,A" but end up in programs designed to prodcharacteristicsuce angry youths who feel disenfranchised from Indian identity. The book reveals how outdated racial theories continue to provide academic frameworks and fuel the rhetoric that can trigger civil wars and genocides in developing countries. The Dravidian movement's 200-year history has such origins. Its latest manifestation is the Dravidian ChristianityA" movement that fabricates a political and cultural history to exploit old faultlines. The book explicitly names individuals and institutions, including prominent Western ones and their Indian affiliates. Its goal is to spark an honest debate on the extent to which human rights and other empowermentA" projects are cover-ups for these nefarious activities.

I went for a book release function yesterday for this book (a "re-release" and another book by Rajiv Malhotra called "Being Different". Heard Malhotra speak as well as Subramanyam Swamy - (who released the book) speak. Both great people - Swamy is a real firebrand and the hall had an INSAS or Kalshnikov toting bodyguard at every entry/exit point.

I got my copies of Malhotra's book autographed in exchange for a prescription of some medicine for Malhotraji who was mildly indisposed.

Malhotra made some interesting points about how "Aryan" and Dravidian" were cooked up and later swallowed by naive Indians. It was of course the Germans who needed some defining identity to latch on to for showing their superiority. Calling themselves Aryans was part of that. The Brits came up with the cock and bull story about Aryans invading like Ghazni and Dravidians running South like Yindoos.

Te words "Dravid" apparently came from Adi Sankara who identified himself as hailing from a region called "Dravida" which acc to Malhotra is derived from two words meaning the meeting point of 3 sea. It was a geographical term, not a racial one. The Brits made it a racial term. Finally political parties picked up the racial term for their own self identity. Subramanyam Swamy said that he was the one who dissuaded Karunanidhi from celebrating "Ravan Leela" by educating Katrunanidhi on several points about Ravana's birth and origins.

Church groups in the US are openly funding things like "Dalitstan org" and "Joshua project" - and the book Breaking India deals with the origins and activities of these groups who "have plans" for India. Malhotra invites everyone to log into
http://www.breakingindia.com/ and join the discussion group.

For those in Bangalore the formal book release of "Being Different" will be held this evening at IISc Bangalore

[Rahul M]

shiv ji, have you heard of the hamitic hypothesis that led to the hutu tutsi conflict ? it's eerie how similar it is to AIT. even the proponents of the theories are all linked up.

[shiv]

shiv ji, have you heard of the hamitic hypothesis that led to the hutu tutsi conflict ? it's eerie how similar it is to AIT. even the proponents of the theories are all linked up.

Rahul as I get older I realise that I am as much of an asshole today as I was 40 years ago. Jo 1970 mein g*ndu whh 2011 mein bhi g*andu. Only now, everyone thinks what I vomit is wisdom. This is exactly what has been the case for all those farts who produced such theories. And a new generation believes crap every time they lick up that puke.

[RamaY]

^ Shivji,

The sad part is many people think it is progress to believe these half-cooked theories.

Question is - how to spread the true knowledge to masses?

[Yayavar]

shiv ji, have you heard of the hamitic hypothesis that led to the hutu tutsi conflict ? it's eerie how similar it is to AIT. even the proponents of the theories are all linked up.

Didn't realise it was called Hamitic hypothesis; the move 'Hotel Rawanda' illustrates the hollowness of this differentiation through the main character who is married across the hutu-tutsi line. While discussing AIT and its gaps, I used this Hutu-Tutsi differentiation as another example with my daughter a few months back. She has brought the 'Aryan' race concept being incorrect with her teacher and he has taken pointers to read up more on it. Her teacher appreciates open and constructive discussion. That helps a lot.

[Pratyush]

UP’s big day: Assembly to debate Maya’s plan to divide state in four

[partha]

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot. ... -ijaz.html

9. L’Affaire Ijaz is Pakistan’s internal affair. However, the re-surfacing of Ijaz from oblivion could uncomfortably remind us of the naivete of the NDA Government which lionised him in 2000-01 and amazingly without verification accepted his claims that he could help in bringing peace to Jammu & Kashmir. The then NDA Government headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee extended to him extraordinary courtesies to facilitate his visits to Srinagar without any paper trail as an interlocutor supposedly blessed by the US. The details of what happened are too well known to need any recapitulation.


10. Since the middle 1990s, Ijaz has repeatedly taken many personalities in the US, India and Pakistan for a ride by projecting himself as a man of iconic influence and web of contacts in the corridors of power in Washington DC, Islamabad and New Delhi. Despite this, eminent sub-continental personalities have been walking into his parlour again and again. This shows that naivete is perennial.

[JE Menon]

>>the naivete of the NDA Government which lionised him in 2000-01 and amazingly without verification accepted his claims that he could help in bringing peace to Jammu & Kashmir. The then NDA Government headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee extended to him extraordinary courtesies to facilitate his visits to Srinagar without any paper trail as an interlocutor

This is perhaps not entirely accurate. Mr. Ijaz was accompanied by people from the Army & RAW during his visit (so it is highly unlikely there was no verification or paper-trail). His background was well enough known then (1), and his role in the ceasefire effort was very well known too, and the environment surrounding that effort was reasonably well documented (2).

1. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... menon.html

2. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... yanan.html

In short, Ijaz was fairly well profiled over a decade ago.

[merlin]

>>the naivete of the NDA Government which lionised him in 2000-01 and amazingly without verification accepted his claims that he could help in bringing peace to Jammu & Kashmir. The then NDA Government headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee extended to him extraordinary courtesies to facilitate his visits to Srinagar without any paper trail as an interlocutor

This is perhaps not entirely accurate. Mr. Ijaz was accompanied by people from the Army & RAW during his visit (so it is highly unlikely there was no verification or paper-trail). His background was well enough known then (1), and his role in the ceasefire effort was very well known too, and the environment surrounding that effort was reasonably well documented (2).

1. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... menon.html

2. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... yanan.html

In short, Ijaz was fairly well profiled over a decade ago.

Hmm. Currying favour with INC again?

[JE Menon]

Merlin,

My feeling is that he is not the type to do that... Again, my feeling is that there is some seriously opaque sh1t going on right now on the Af-Pak and just "Pak" front that we simply cannot penetrate. Frankly it is extremely unusual (even weird). My guess is that a major drama is unfolding, and that we are playing our "role" in it - and it is not a mere supporting role. We will find out in a few months, I suspect. There is too much uniformity in the statements coming out of GoI and the security enclave for it to be otherwise.

BTW, our engagement with the US is today not comparable BY ANY MEANS to what it was even 6-7 years ago. Consultation is far far more intensive, from what I understand. Occasional snippets of conversation, official comments here and there, and so on are highly suggestive of that. Whether it all turns into our favour (rather than merely being not harmful to us) depends on how well we play it.

I'm not too worried about it, although our prime minister's legacy-driven approach to Pakistan is certainly causing some uncertainty in the stomach

[merlin]

Yes, certainly seems fishy. Something is going on.

[RamaY]

"Memogate" & Manmohan

Manmohan Singh's unilateralism in foreign policy has run to excess. He is damaging India's national interests. Specific with Pakistan, he is diluting India's stand on 26/11. Pakistan will not bring the 26/11 terrorists to justice, and Manmohan Singh's peace moves imply that India has forgiven and forgotten the Bombay carnage. The former cricketer, Imran Khan, is now being propped up by the Pakistan army/ ISI as an alternative to Zardari and Nawaz Sharief. Smartly, Imran Khan has made the right noises on Indian news TV. Next you know, the Manmohan Singh government will be wooing the ex-sports star.

Enough. Manmohan Singh must be prevented from his personalized peace moves with Pakistan. He has no sanction for it from the country. His own party is opposed to it. Unless Pakistan stabilizes, the military is brought under civilian control, the ISI is disbanded, and the terrorists are vanquished, there can be no peace with the country. It is not enough that India wants peace. Pakistan must reciprocate. It is in no position to do so. The best India could do for itself and for Pakistan is to keep away and watch its terroristic neighbour do down.