Remembering Indira

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2009 00:47

vera_k wrote:How do you then reconcile the fact that Indira got support from the Communists/Leftists against the Syndicate? And then banned the RSS?

Indira became paranoid after 1974 test fearing overthrow from the US and took the help of the communists/leftist. JP movement had backing of the CIA -Indian Congress for Cultural Freedom . Read the book - The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters ~ Frances Stonor Saunders (Author)
Syndicate group was talking to the UK and US govt. Leftist opposed to the west supported her.
Any group opposed to her emergency was banned by her.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 02 Nov 2009 00:47

See the apparent contradictions:

Vera_K notes that IG banned the RSS (she banned many organizations..)
The article (looks like Wikipedia?) says that IG's Sterilization campaign disproportionately targeted Muslims, and that the "beautification" program was aimed at Muslim-occupied slums.

She took the help of the CPI(RightWing). Not the CPI(M). Big difference. CPI(R) was pro-Moscow, but pretty tame and pro-Indian, compared to CPI(M) which was Chinese-paid and Chinese-owned (and still is today).

Both are probably right in noting the EFFECTS. The common root philosophy is that she was pro-INDIA. The disproportionate targeting of Muslims in the sterilization program was (a) due to the difference in birth-rate/ customs between communities and (b) due to the nature of those wielding LOCAL power in UP.

Same with the "beautification program". It was the local goons who suddenly got power due to the Emergency, and went on a spree, that gave the entire era a bad name. I don't blame this on IG. (I do blame Sanjay G and his goon chamchas).

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 02 Nov 2009 00:48

But Indira got Communist/Leftist support against the Syndicate in 1969.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2009 00:50

vera_k wrote:But Indira got Communist/Leftist support against the Syndicate in 1969.

That is how fluid the Indian polity is - mostly headless chicken.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 02 Nov 2009 00:52

I note that this is a TIME link. TIME is a US publication, and until very recently, was 399% blatantly racist anti-Indian.

They were/are also too idiotic to make the distinction between CPI(R) and CPI(L) aka CPI(M). There was a world of difference, and not CPI(R) has become extinct, because they were always just centrist, and were in fact very decent "communists". For instance the Achutha Menon govt in Kerala was usually aligned with pro-democracy, pro-India forces, whereas the CPI(L/M) were always extreme, PRC-bought, and aligned with Muslim League aka Pakistan Fan Club.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2009 00:55

enqyoob wrote:Acharya:
A post in the best traditions of conspiracy theory, but u surprise me with that sentiment! The anti-Indira movement was mainly run by the ppl who became the supporters of the ABV guvrmand. Note, I am not saying that ABV himself was anti-Indira, actually he was by far the best statesman and decent politician in the Lok Sabha of that period, and clearly won the respect of even IG.

But the young ppl of today may not know that the predecessors of the "BJP" of today were the Jana Sangh, the Swatantra Party etc. who were considered to be stooges of Amirkhan in those days, while George Fernandes was a true Socialist (labor union rabble rouser).

As for Indian Express, yes, in those days they were relatively "free, frank and fearless" and presented both sides, IMO (I don't know what I missed). But if you wanted the REAL inside scoop for conspiracy theory, you had to read BLITZ, assuming that you were allowed to by the Censors at home, forget the Emergency censors. And ooh the back page!

I will ignore your post since there is scores of books on this subject. There are also many declassified info from various sources.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Nov 2009 00:56

It helps if people don't start labelling things. Let the information flow in and then decide.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2009 01:08

Acharya wrote:
vera_k wrote:But Indira got Communist/Leftist support against the Syndicate in 1969.
That is how fluid the Indian polity is - mostly headless chicken.

Thing to remember is that India became the fighting ground between the Soviet Union and the USA in their ideological wars. It was the cultural war between the KGB and CIA during the 60s and 70s.

Syndicate, Swatantra party and Jan Sangh were considered pro capitalist, pro west, pro UK and against socialism and communism.
Left parties, Socialist parties, CPI, CPM and congress (I) etc are opposed to the west, capitalism and are considered pro-communism, pro socialist and pro China.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 02 Nov 2009 03:28

War and Secession: Pakistan, India and the Creation of Bangladesh
by Richard Sisson, Leo E. Rose
has the following passage

For the Government of India the most controversial and potentially embarrassing of the resolutions presented to the Security Council was that submitted by Poland, since it was the only resolution that had a high probability of adoption. The Polish resolution, like the earlier Soviet resolutions, called for the transfer of power in East Pakistan to the representatives elected in December 1970 - that is, the Awami League - and this was, of course, Indian policy as well. But unlike the Soviet resolutions, the Polish proposal also called for an immediate cease-fire and troop withdrawals by both sides, as well as the renunciation of claims to any territories acquired by force during the war. These provisions aroused considerable distress in New Delhi. [27]

A cease-fire and immediate mutual withdrawal before the capture of Dhaka, as specified in the Polish resolution, would have deprived India of the clear military victory in East Pakistan symbolized by the surrender of the Pakistani armed forces on that front. But even more important, a quick withdrawal of its forces would have vastly complicated India's capacity to assist the Awami League in establishing a stable and moderate regime in Bangladesh once both the Indian and Pakistani forces were withdrawn and the conglomeration of Bangladeshi resistance groups commenced their own civil war for control of the new country under circumstances that would have been difficult for India to influence. New Delhi also disliked the "renunciation of occupied territory" clause in the Polish resolution, which would have obligated India to once again restore the strategic points on the Pakistani side of the cease-fire line in Kashmir that had been seized at some cost.

India did not doubt that the Polish resolution was really Soviet in origin, and New Delhi reluctantly conceded that it would have no option but to accept a Security Council resolution that was approved unanimously, which the Polish resolution would have been. Fortunately for New Delhi, Zulfikar Ali Bhutton, the head of the Pakistani delegation to the United Nations, came to its rescue. In the Security Council proceedings on 15 December, Bhutto denounced the failure of the United Nations to act promptly, tore up a copy of the Polish resolution, and stormed out of the session, halting all consideration of the subject.[28] Two days later Dhaka fell, the Pakistani army in the east surrendered, and the war was over.

Hmm, that Dec 15 date above is probably a mistake.

The footnotes are not part of the books.google.com preview.

India-Pakistan in war and peace by Jyotindra Nath Dixit has the Polish resolution being moved on December 14.

But it also has this

By the morning of 14 December, local time in New York, it was clear that the military conflict would end in another 12 to 24 hours. We asked Sardar Swaran Singh why he was insisting on a long speech that might distract the Security Council members' attention from the issue. He replied that he had to gain sufficient time for India to bring the conflict to a decisive end without being thwarted by any Security Council decision. His political assessment was accurate, as it was obvious by 11 December that patience was wearing thin at the United Nations. Even the Russions had started urging India to end the conflict quickly as they felt they could not continue their opposition to the West's moves at the UN for very long.

The same book says that Swaran Singh received news of the Pakistani surrender some time during the morning of December 16, and addressed the Security Council informing them of the surrender and India's decision to declare a unilateral ceasefire on the western front. It was at this point that Bhutto had his temper tantrum. [So it contradicts Sisson and Rose w.r.t. timing.]

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Nov 2009 03:33

IG should not be seen in isolation. Her life and career is as much shaped by her own early life as JLN's daughter, as the specific dynamic of north Indian politics as left by the Islamic and British colonial regimes. Moreover how these factors interacted with broader geopolitical chess moves.

JLN or more accurately the British and Congress coterie politics around him cleared the Indian political scene of potential rivals. In such a situation, north Indian opportunist portions of the elite did what they had traditionally learnt to do for at least a thousand years. They rallied around an individual who appears to be favoured by dominant foreign powers with the power to inflict damages or benefits on the elites and their interests. Opportunism is a great erasure of identities, cultures and values - what I had dubed "baniafication of values". This means that JLN was both a result as well as a perpetrator of an ideological vaccuum in which coteries could form that opportunistically shifted from one political side to another depending on temporary advantages. They had no fear of being electorally punished for such switches since the commons would also have seen no advantages in acting according to set values.

In the absence of an independent set of socially enforced values to evaluate political action, with an acceleration of fractures promoted to recognize more and more distinctions and claims of subidentities, political staility had to be made dependent on loyalty to the individual. Such an individual would help to provide national focus and stability of centre of power. Once this process happens, it intensifies. Such an individual, and more so the coterie dependent on that individual, would try to make sure that alternative foci - individuals or ideological do not appear.

IG was no illumination at all in the illuminati of pre-Independence. She was also isolated from childhood with little or no political organizational experience. However, once the careful removal of potential rivals was accomplished, she would naturally become an optimal candidate for factions in the coterie jockeying for scarce political and power resources. Her initial isolation made her a perfect candidate for manipulation - since she would have little pre-existing tieups. On the otherhand IG's isolation also made her susceptible to feelings of alienation from indigenous ideologies, cultures and groupings or rather not rely on the domestic power bases alone. More importantly she might not have felt sure of the loyalties of her immediate fan-club, as well as the capacity of the country in general to resist foreign pressures.

With the intensification of the Cold War, IG, given her vulnerabilities - would have been forced to join one international camp or the other. This would e in the finest of traditions of Indian elite who had suffered alienation from their own people if born into an atmosphere of belief in superiority-by-birth. They cannot entirely rely on the strength of domestic "inferiors" and feel the need to ally themselves with foreign powers. They keep themselves in power as mediators between indigenous groups on the one hand and foreign interested powers on the other hand.

Use or not of factions within the communist movement is just a matter of opportunism to suit instantaneous needs or perceptions of threat. Those interested can look into the whole drama starting from IG and Kerala right in 1966-67. Only when the "west" failed to address India's concerns and strategic interests vis-a-vis Pakistan which was utilizing the cold-war to pursue its national pastime of baiting and harassing India, did IG move in within the Soviet circle. She had no problem with the vicious suppression of the Naxals because in the late 60's both USSR and USA would have no love lost for Maoists. Moreover, contrary to what the impression appears to be - Maoists then were actually far inferior in material resources, and combat experience comapred to now - trillions of tons of emotion does not entirely compensate for real lack of military strength.

However her success, in creating BD, made her a nuisance for the west. This could have, would have created plans and initiatives to remove her from power. Question why would then USSR allow their supposed strategic asset to be removed? However the 1974-1978 period is a critical phase in USSR politics - with transitions in its foreign policy and factional infighting within the core PB and CC. Moreover, they could have been concerned with IG's attempt to create an independent power base by appealing to the "people" directly - what she could have thought feasible given her apparent success in '71.

Her isolation allowed her to perhaps ignore the international hostility that was now aligning and encouraging forces within the country frustrated at their own lack of share in power. It is natural also to see why she went for "socializing" efforts - an attempt to reakdown the remnant power of indepndent elite groups who could retain enough influence to deny her personal authority. And on the other side why she would rely more and more on her own "bloodline" - for she cannot rely on anyone other than "self". Her "son" being an extension of her "self".

Her isolation helped in one direction by making Indian governmental efforts less susceptible to external agenda - but on the other hand paved the way for a dynasty and individual based national focus which has much greater long-term potential of being manipulable by foreign interests. For now, a foreign power with the capacity and the will - only needs to manipulate one individual rather than a collective. I would see that the IG family has been systematically penalized as a lesson to make them understand that they should not think of expanding the territorial influence of India beyond its current borders - this is for "others" to play with. So far the lesson seems to be honoured. This is the handicap legacy of IG.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2009 03:54

brihaspati wrote: JLN or more accurately the British and Congress coterie politics around him cleared the Indian political scene of potential rivals. In such a situation, north Indian opportunist portions of the elite did what they had traditionally learnt to do for at least a thousand years. They rallied around an individual who appears to be favoured by dominant foreign powers with the power to inflict damages or benefits on the elites and their interests. Opportunism is a great erasure of identities, cultures and values - what I had dubed "baniafication of values".

This is fantastic analysis!

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 02 Nov 2009 05:56

I have seen it all....

First lets recap a little

When LB Sastry when to Tashkent and signed the treaty under the pressure of Kosygyn, there was a sense of disbelief that we agreed to such a treaty in the nation. But one must understand that India received a drubbing in 1962 from which the nation was yet to recover. The fact was

1) Coffers were near empty does anybody remember National Defense fund melas by Movie stars and hypothecation of private gold under gold bonds etc to raise money for GOI?

2) The food situation was precarious, without PL 480 funds and aid India was nearly in perpetual famine state.
remember the rice shortage in Tamil Nadu and how Andhra was made to contribute to TN under central govt dictates that wide spread rice smuggling was the norm between Chitoor and TN Ennore. People would sit on top of trains and between coaches carrying 10 kgs 20 kgs smuggling rice?
Regular raids on trucks illegally shipping food between states was norm?

3) That LBS appealed to Indians to fast every Monday evening so that we could consume less?

4) That Hybrid wheat Norman Borlaug created was making waves in Mexico and India was trying to get farming modernize especially food bowl Punjab state. He coined (LBS) Jai Jawan Jai Kisan to give equal importance to Farmer and Soldier.

During these turbulence he dies of heart attack. It is stupid and unfair to ascribe it IG or any Nehru clan period.

Then Gulzari Lal Nanda took over as acting PM ( he had only on lung is another trivia, also he was only one to be thrice acting PM).

So when the old guard under Kamaraj, Morarji, Desai, Nijalingappa, Sanjeeva Reddy decided to make IG (the then Information and Broad casting minister in LBS cabinet) as short term PM (in their view) till they could decide among the stalwarts who take over, they did not see what was coming...

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 02 Nov 2009 07:55

In retrospect, it would appear that the modern INC President is the model that 'Gappa et al wanted to achieve with IG at the "helm". They didn't encounter the citizenship problem that the modern entity encountered.
Unfortunately for them, she had a brain, and more spirit and energy than the whole bunch of them put together.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 02 Nov 2009 08:38

brihaspati wrote:IG should not be seen in isolation. Her life and career is as much shaped by her own early life as JLN's daughter, as the specific dynamic of north Indian politics as left by the Islamic and British colonial regimes. Moreover how these factors interacted with broader geopolitical chess moves.

Am curious - why is it different wrt other parts of India? did we not have similar dynamics whether it was in wodeyar mysore or patiala ? Or do you mean large tracts that were directly ruled by the British? Were these different in Andhra vs United provinces?

JLN or more accurately the British and Congress coterie politics around him cleared the Indian political scene of potential rivals. In such a situation, north Indian opportunist portions of the elite did what they had traditionally learnt to do for at least a thousand years. They rallied around an individual who appears to be favoured by dominant foreign powers with the power to inflict damages or benefits on the elites and their interests.

Was this different in rest of the India? btw, what is North India in the above description?

Opportunism is a great erasure of identities, cultures and values - what I had dubed "baniafication of values".

What does above mean? You have used 'baniafication' for 'commoditization' in earlier discussions. Why label this opportunism 'baniafication'?

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 02 Nov 2009 09:07

Continued
During the 1962 crisis Mrs. IG had visited many forward areas as JLN was crest fallen at the events and subsequent handling of the crisis by Krishna Menon, the debacle under Gen BM Kaul, his hand picked corps commander all took a heavy toll and by 1963 JLN was not out of Doom and gloom. His stature as leader of the NAM movement, his prestige in the eyes of third world leaders like Sukarno, Gamel Nasser, his concept of third world solidarity under his aegis all went out like puff of smoke.

It was during this time IG was able to understand the real politics in independent India. yes earlier she had seen under Gandhiji JLN, SVP Abdul Kalam Azad Rajendra Prasad like stalwarts how the congress internal politics and dynamics worked.

When Nehru learned the death of JFK his buddy in 1963 November it was all the more devastating to him because, Khrushchev conveniently side stepped when asked for help against China(Mao) saying it was a war between a friend (India) and brother (PRC). In a way by 1964 beginning Nehru was effectively no longer PM and IG was already doing most of the work from behind the scenes, In way it was a on the Job training for her.

When JLN died in 1964 may the most qualified from babucracy was IG but Congress in those days was more democratic and after deliberations including some back stabbings LBS was agreed as a compromise. Remember that UP had the maximum number of MPs and LBS was very congenial, humble and true Gandhian to the core to be the consensus candidate for the PM candidature.

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 02 Nov 2009 09:13

For the Government of India the most controversial and potentially embarrassing of the resolutions presented to the Security Council was that submitted by Poland

A question to the Gurujan's why was Poland passing resolutions on what India should or should not do? They weren't members of the security council...

Sorry for going OT

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 02 Nov 2009 09:15

brihaspati wrote:IG was no illumination at all in the illuminati of pre-Independence. She was also isolated from childhood with little or no political organizational experience. However, once the careful removal of potential rivals was accomplished, she would naturally become an optimal candidate for factions in the coterie jockeying for scarce political and power resources. Her initial isolation made her a perfect candidate for manipulation - since she would have little pre-existing tieups. On the otherhand IG's isolation also made her susceptible to feelings of alienation from indigenous ideologies, cultures and groupings or rather not rely on the domestic power bases alone. More importantly she might not have felt sure of the loyalties of her immediate fan-club, as well as the capacity of the country in general to resist foreign pressures.

This careful removal of rivals (due to natural causes of course) appears to be an ongoing process in Indian polity. Due to natural causes and terrorism we lost siblings (SG, RG), Madhavrao, Rajesh Pilot and other potential leaders. This is a great tragedy for our nation that a potential leader always passes away and we are stuck with mediocrity at best and treachery at worst. The key would be for a potential leader to not advertise onseself so that the "evil" eye does not strike.
The 70's and 60's were interesting. Within a span of 15 years, we lost 3 crucial Gandhis - Sanjay, Rajeev and Indira. Must be "Gods" grace that nothing has happened in the last 18 years.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 02 Nov 2009 09:37

But Jarita: Does this not imply that 1.1 Billion people have only a very small pool of potential leaders? I cannot see why that is/should be so.

AFAIK, there was nothing extra-special about the JLN family or dynasty. They were no doubt smart, well-educated (can't say that much about the latest generation), came from a historical background of great wealth and great tragedy and conflicts, and had the benefit of first-hand observation of top-level politics and international affairs. IG, RG, SG all probably hid below the chairs during discussions of national and global significance, and got the knack of dealing with world leaders early.

But such things are not the only ways to groom new leaders. There must be thousands or tens of thousands of Indians today who have equivalent or better credentials.

Umraoji, excellent recap of history. IG must also have got a very good sense of the depth or lack thereof, of national and global figures. Which really removed all hesitation when she had to act against, or face up to, these entities.

As jarita says, the 60s-80s were times of great decisions and rapid top-down changes. Today is comparatively very quiet and stable, and the GOI moves very slowly or only by default. In IG's time, every day was an adventure and the news headlines were very interesting. India was really "Nation On The Move".

An example of IG's energy was her Speaking Tour of the West in 1971, trying to impress upon the world why the Pakistani genocide in East Pakistan had to be stopped. She spoke at many universities. My landlady in AmirKhana, told me how she got to see Mrs. G when she came to the neighborhood to get her hair fixed during her tour. Very impressed at the grace and charm. That was the effect she had on everyone she wanted to impress.

I cannot believe all the Evil Empress characterizations that I have read of her. I think she did what she had to do, and in many cases managed to do it pre-emptively, which was the only way she could have survived and won. And win she did.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 02 Nov 2009 10:05

Why is a discussion on historical Indira strategic in nature but a discussion on social engineering in India (stuff that led to the vivisection of the country in the past ) not strategic in nature?
Pretty arbitrary decision.

bart · Post by **bart** » 02 Nov 2009 10:09

anishns wrote:
For the Government of India the most controversial and potentially embarrassing of the resolutions presented to the Security Council was that submitted by Poland
A question to the Gurujan's why was Poland passing resolutions on what India should or should not do? They weren't members of the security council...

Sorry for going OT

Cold War Poland = Remote Controlled by Moscow.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 02 Nov 2009 10:32

Indira Gandhi reached the meekest, humblest, common man and woman at a personal level in a way that would be impossible to imagine today. This in an age of virtually no TV. The '71 war had mass support and understanding, again from a mostly illiterate population. They may not have understood geopolitics, but everyone understood the meaning of those 5p refugee stamps with the picture of men in lungis and women in sarees with children, all bowed down under the burden of their loads. She not only presided over India's finest hour, but actually brought it about by careful yet ruthless design and execution.

I was privileged to present salaam-e-shastr to this petite, stern-faced leader of my country as she strode briskly about a foot in front of my face, inspecting each cadet as it were with fierce intensity.

Shed a tear for the lady.

Umrao Das · Post by **Umrao Das** » 02 Nov 2009 10:50

When IG was made the PM in 1966 , the biggest challenges facing her were
The food crisis,
The weakening rupee,
Bad droughts and irregular monsoons
Internal congress dissent.

Mrs. IG actually won more votes than Morarji Desai and was his second defeat as he had contested after the death of JLN also. It must be admitted that there was fair degree of internal democracy in congress party still. Sulking Morarji bahi pledged his support to Indira Bhen. Notice the similarity of Dick Nixon losing twice before getting elected in 1972. Similarly Morarji Bhai had to wait sipping urine till 1979.

Anyway back to topic.
One must admit that JLN had management skills and a plan to develop sincerely India so under his first 5 yr plan he had constructed dams across major rivers, started the foundation for heavy industry Steel, Coal, and above all educational (IITs) and scientific institutions, one such was BARC to name a few. When Mrs. IG took over we were into second five year plan and most projects were in gestation periods and we had come out of a stalemate war forced on us, once again emptying the coffers. So we had to borrow heavily from foreign countries and unashamedly ask for out right grants especially on food front. US aid for text books, US PL480 funds for food imports, Colombo Plan aid, commonwealth countries Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada pitched in. Even Denmark, Holland were shipping free powder milk for school children etc.
Many agricultural universities just started functioning.

The pressure on Rupee was relentless as government like the current US government was heavily wedded to deficit financing, as expenditure for the plan allocations had to be found, so the best was the (Fed way) print Rupees. Incidentally Morarji Bhai was the deputy PM and finance minister, while IG Patel was minting money as secretary of Finance. Note One Rupee note was issued by secretary of Finance while all other were issued by Reserve Bank of India. The decision to devalue the Rupee in 1966 was one of the reasons that Morarji had to resign as he was removed as Finance minister.

The Indian economy was termed in those days as economy of margins or Marginal economy as 1 % of excess rainfall would be floods of disastrous proportion
or a deficit 1% rainfall would be drought of disastrous proportion. This was so because of the antiquated methods of agriculture, water resource management and not tapping (yet) the hydel potential. In these conditions the dynamic duo of C Subramaniam and Swamtnathan teamed to give impetus to green revolution that was earlier championed by
LBS. Dr. Swaminathan got Norman Borlaug to come to India and help usher the cultivation of Hybrid wheat in Punjab and other quick gestation short variety of Rice from Taiwan, I remember when my father planted "Akkulu" or "Nellore Molakalkulu" the yield was 8 to 10 bags(quintal) per acre, where as when we switched to Taichung (Native) - I The yield was 25 to 28 bags (quintal) and the crop maturity was 90 days, ideal for second crop in East Godavari.
This to get a picture of what was India in 1966, meanwhile there was lot of rsentment at Mrs IG from the elder statesmen who were taking pot shots at her. In those days Congress Chief minister wielded a lot of power and they were king makers in their own right.

To be contd

IG in 1966.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 02 Nov 2009 11:38

Homi Bhabha's plane crashed in Switzerland the day Indira was sworn in as PM.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 02 Nov 2009 11:59

Regarding Poland, and SC resolutions...

Seventeen resolutions were introduced in the UN on the Bangladesh crisis—four in the General Assembly and thirteen in the Security Council
—between 4 and 7 December. Thirteen more resolutions were introduced in the Security Council between 12 and 21 December. The resolutions moved by the US, the USSR and Poland were the most significant. The US consistently demanded an immediate end to all Indo-Pakistan hostilities, called for an immediate withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani forces from each other’s territories, and appealed to both countries to create an atmosphere conducive to the return of Bangladeshi refugees to their country, and to use the secretary-general’s good offices for this purpose. There was not a single reference to the political aspirations of Bangladesh or the manner in which these should be fulfilled.

The Russian resolutions in contrast were brief and to the point. These called for a political settlement in East Pakistan, which the USSR believed would automatically end the military hostilities, and urged Pakistan to direct its armed forces to stop all violence towards the people of East Pakistan. The draft resolution introduced by China was condemnatory of India, and to withdraw its forces from Pakistani territory. It suggested that all states should support Pakistan in its just struggle to resist Indian aggression. The other resolutions moved by France, the UK and the non-permanent members of the Security Council conformed to the US resolutions.

The most significant resolution moved in the Security Council was the one proposed by Poland (draft resolution No. S-10453) on 14 December 1971. It sought the stipulation on behalf of the Security Council that power would be peacefully transferred to the lawfully elected representatives of the people of East Pakistan led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who should be released immediately. The resolution conditioned a ceasefire on this. As a follow-up Poland wanted the withdrawal of Pakistani armed forces to preset locations in East Pakistan from where they should be sent back to West Pakistan. The repatriation of Pakistani forces and West Pakistani civilians and the return of refugees was to be managed under the supervision of the United Nations. The resolution suggested that once these conditions were fulfilled, the Indian forces should immediately withdraw from Pakistani territory. It also suggested that neither country should retain any territory captured by it during the military conflict.

The Soviet Union as far as I recall, cast vetoes in favour of India about seven times between 4 and 16 December against US and Western-sponsored resolutions. The Polish and Soviet resolutions, which generally supported Bangladesh’s cause and the Indian stance, received similar veto treatment from the Western permanent members of the Security Council. It was only when the war reached the concluding stage, between 12 and 14 December, that some resolutions in the Council, such as those moved by France, began to refer to the need for a political settlement and a response to the Bangladeshis’ aspirations. The broad outcome was that because of India’s close relations and strategic equations with the Soviet Union, the Security Council was prevented from taking any mandatory punitive action against India. Had there not been a Soviet veto, President Nixon’s pro-Pakistan tilt would have found expression in a Security Council initiative that would have aborted the Bangladesh freedom struggle and resulted in a monumental strategic setback for India.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Nov 2009 12:05

KV Rao wrote:Indira Gandhi reached the meekest, humblest, common man and woman at a personal level in a way that would be impossible to imagine today. She not only presided over India's finest hour, but actually brought it about by careful yet ruthless design and execution.

I was privileged to present salaam-e-shastr to this petite, stern-faced leader of my country as she strode briskly about a foot in front of my face, inspecting each cadet as it were with fierce intensity.

Shed a tear for the lady.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKiQboyDMUo

Check her voice, eyes and intelligence.
She could read the leadership of the world capital who were watching what would India do.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 02 Nov 2009 12:09

Babur's tomb is on the outskirts of Kabul. When IG went to pay a state visit to Kabul in the 1970s before the Soviets crossed into Afghanistan in 1979 she requested that she pay a private visit to Babur's tomb to pay homage to him.

I have always wondered as to why she did not ask to do the same for Prithviraj Chauhan's tomb in Ghazni.

A minor nitpick though...I hold her in the highest regard.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Nov 2009 12:47

Paul wrote:I have always wondered as to why she did not ask to do the same for Prithviraj Chauhan's tomb in Ghazni.

Indira Gandhi was certainly a true patriot, and for better or for worse, a truly deserving person in the dynasty started by Motilal Nehru (not JLN as is mistakenly assumed).

But at the same time she was human, shaped by the same forces that shaped all Indian elites in that period and held back by the same.

In that sense, her successes and failures have to be seen in the context of not only the person but as a combination of forces, and yes even the best made mistakes, as she made with her type of dynastic politics as well as with emergency etc.

------------------

One thing that folks miss is that IGs term and behavior (including massive Socialist systems) were also the MAIN cause of endemic corruption that now plagues India (she was personally known to be accepting towards corruption when brought to her attention)

And Oh BTW, my very very very close relatives were Ministers in her Govt. so I know what I speak of when I do.

------------------

N wrote:The anti-Indira movement was mainly run by the ppl who became the supporters of the ABV guvrmand. Note, I am not saying that ABV himself was anti-Indira, actually he was by far the best statesman and decent politician in the Lok Sabha of that period, and clearly won the respect of even IG.

Oh BTW that is not correct, when BJP really emerged in the 90s it was because by then Congress had cut loose many constituency which looked upon it as the Indian-Hindu party (yes it had that image for better or for worse in many parts) they found a natural home with RSS parivar.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Nov 2009 18:30

http://www.dailypioneer.com/212621/Bitt ... egacy.html

Bittersweet legacy

Chandan Mitra

Twenty-five years is too short a time in history to make a dispassionate assessment of a personality as overpowering and complex as Indira Gandhi. It is only when the predictable overdose of nostalgia on the one hand and bitterness on the other peter out that historians might succeed in reaching a near-objective conclusion about her legacy. Only one thing will be as true then as it is today: There will be no unanimity about the appraisal. Indira Gandhi divided India in death as much as she divided polity in her lifetime. Resolute, combative, ruthless are some of the adjectives often used about her and not just by her political opponents. But the other side of her persona, fiercely nationalist on the one hand and caring, sensitive, nature-loving on the other rarely find the same prominence in her report card.

Writing on the legacy of World War II, historian Arnold Toynbee remarked, if one needed to locate a memorial to Adolf Hitler one had only to look at the post-War map of Europe. This is not remotely to suggest that Indira possessed Hitlerian traits, the draconian Emergency (1975-77) notwithstanding. But I quote Toynbee to similarly suggest that India as we find it today is very largely what Indira Gandhi left behind for us. Why just India, she altered the geo-politics of South Asia itself: Bangladesh today may not give her due credit, but I make bold to suggest that its founding father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman would probably have mounted the gallows and East Pakistan would have stayed the way Islamabad wanted it to be, namely, a subjugated colony, but for the sheer courage of Indira's conviction.

Sikkim too may not have risen in revolt against its erstwhile ruler and merged with India but for her success in fashioning India into the region's predominant power with sufficient self-confidence to defy even the mighty United States. Pokhran II, which propelled India into the enviable status of a world power, might not have happened had she not had the guts to "implode" a nuclear device for "peaceful purposes" way back in 1974. Whichever way you look at it, demonise her or deify her, Indira Gandhi moulded India's fledgling nationhood, crafted a self-assured nation and ensured that the country she loved with consummate passion could never again be treated lightly as a poor, developing former British colony.

An inveterate egoist, her father Jawaharlal, once wrote an obituary of himself in Ramananda Chatterjee's celebrated nationalist journal Modern Review. In it he said that if asked to pay a tribute to himself in one sentence, he would write: "Here was a man who loved India from the very core of his heart and in turn the people of India returned this in full measure". Nehru's legacy is now coming into increasing dispute after decades of hagiographical sycophancy by Congress-Left historians. But Indira's legacy was bittersweet in her lifetime and continues to be so thereafter. Yet, those lines appear more appropriate for her rather than her Anglophile, Fabian Socialist father whose grandiose notions of himself often restricted clarity of vision pushing him into a series of costly mistakes including the ceasefire in Jammu & Kashmir, 1962 war with China and above all the erection of an inefficient economic system in the name of pursuing egalitarian goals.

Undoubtedly, Nehru was loved by the people for his candour and transparency but then those were innocent times for the country and its politics. Faced with the first serious crisis on the China border, his unreal dreams of Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai having been shattered, Nehru was a broken man realising he had failed to stand up to the challenge. Indira, on the other hand, had nerves of steel: No wonder she was the first politician about whom it was said she was the only one who wore pants in her Cabinet — a comment later used widely about Margaret Thatcher.

It was perhaps the overflowing popular support she commanded in the aftermath of the liberation of Bangladesh, preceded by bank nationalisation, abolition of privy purses and enactment of land ceiling laws that lulled her into complacency. I don't believe she was a dictator at heart, even if she was impatient with the political opposition. But egged on by her younger son she was pushed into a misadventure in 1975 particularly when she realised half her party was conspiring against her in the wake of the Allahabad High Court judgement unseating her from Parliament.

With her, the Nehru-Gandhi trait of assuming the family's divine right to rule moved from being a private conviction to public assertion. That is what motivated her epic fight-back against tormentors in the Janata Party Government who, in turn, facilitated her struggle by harassing her with the Shah Commission and later expelling her from Parliament after she won the Chikmagalur by-election. She could play with people's emotions with a dexterity never seen since: Women swooned and fainted at her mere glimpse, in the South Indiramma is still the Congress's principal vote-catcher even if most of its voters today weren't born when she was felled by assassins' bullets. Just observe the number plates of tourist buses that line the parking lot outside 1 Safdarjang Road; the overwhelming majority are from Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.

Amid all these astonishing qualities, she had one fatal flaw: A tearing sense of insecurity bordering on paranoia. She could destroy institutional structures at will, actually proceeded to bring the judiciary under political control and believed that the bureaucracy existed only to help fulfill her political goals. She even sought to legitimise this pursuit by coining the phrase "committed judiciary and bureaucracy" that were to be employed to usher in social and economic "justice", a euphemism for institutionalised Congress supremacy.

Perhaps her mounting insecurity and inability to accept defeat on any front drove her into the fast lane seeking to short-circuit the goal of legitimisation through the Emergency. Had she been more patient and obtained electoral endorsement, it is possible that she would have destroyed constitutionally ordained institutions even further for even the Constitution was hardly a sacred document for her. By inserting "Secular, Socialist" in its preamble — words none has dared to change despite India long abandoning socialism — she sought to establish nothing, not even her father’s genuine commitment to democracy, was sacrosanct if it came in the way of her objectives.

India has learnt a lot from her failures; dealing with local insurgencies being one of them. In retrospect, Punjab need not have happened at all. But her temptation to use it to electoral advantage persuaded her to first foment religious fundamentalism and then allow it to fester to a point where she thought she would be feted for effecting a smooth surgical operation. It didn’t happen quite that way and she paid with her life.

Pending a more dispassionate appraisal of her humungous legacy, we need to exorcise the bad and focus on the good to create an India that would make her proud. India owes her that much.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 02 Nov 2009 18:40

http://www.dailypioneer.com/212465/Tell ... egacy.html
Telling Mrs G from her legacy

Ashok Malik

....................

Yet, nostalgia for Mrs Gandhi is much more than nostalgia for the sum total of her achievements. She is best remembered as a strong and decisive leader, the ‘strongman in a democratic framework’ that is the Indian middle class’s — or any middle class’s — dream.

Government veterans say her notes on files were among the most trenchant put down by any Indian politician, not just any Prime Minister. Those in the strategic affairs community swear they have never encountered a Prime Minister with such an astute grasp of realpolitik and so ferociously single-minded in her resolve to protect India’s interests, whatever the costs.

.................

In a decade when the Asian tigers began to galvanise East Asia, Mrs Gandhi put her faith in wildly Left populism, in a nationalisation binge, in high taxes and an extortionate state that made tax evasion an industry, drove good people out of business and decent, white collar Indians out of the country. All in all, she converted Government into a patronage-dispensing machine in a society of chronic shortages.

It took India 30 years to throw off that incubus. Imagine what may have been if Mrs Gandhi had promoted a less statist, a less highly-strung and an economically liberal India in the 1970s. There would have been no Emergency. The anger and energies of young India and of individual regions and States would have been sublimated in the larger concourse of hope — as is the case with contemporary India. Institutions, from the civil services to the judiciary, would not have been subverted. The public sector would not have become a self-serving racket.

Enlightened governance in the 1970s would have led to a more easy-going and confident India in the 1980s. Unfortunately, for all her sterling qualities as a leader, that was not to be Mrs Gandhi’s legacy. It’s sad; but she brought it upon herself.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Nov 2009 19:30

One must remember that Mrs.G. took her tough decisions in the light of events within and without the country during her time.As many have said,we were a poor country.Ration cards were then not needed for proof of residence for passport applications,but gave the poor sugar,rice,commodities,etc.,which were in short supply at low rates.I vividly remember using jaggery at home for coffee as sugar was often not available.Cheese came in from abroad in tins sent for the poor which they resold.Amul was just beginning to prove its worth.PL-480 food supplies had to have LBJs' chop before they could be despatched (along with toxic parthenium weed,alien to India,his parting shot!).

On the war front,we had been bruised and battered by China in '62,the memory was still very fresh and Pak tried to do the same in '65 and gallant little Lal Bahadur taught them a signal lesson.His unexpected death (very short people are more prone to heart attacks-fact),robbed us of a strong leader at a crucial time.As they say,"cometh the hour,cometh the man",in this case the "man" was Indira.The Congress "Tammany Hall" style bosses hated her and conspired against her.She had to split the party to establish her authority.A tough act for anyone,let alone a woman in male dominated India.

Internationally,the Cold war was in full swing.The US played its China card to outflank the Soviets,and Pak took full advantage of the Nixon-Kissinger "tilt" in '71.The Pakis thought that their close bum-chum relationship with the US allowed them to destroy Bengali political aspirations and enforce Punjabi dominance on the whole of Pak.Gen.Yayha forgot about Indira in the equation.Since WW2,there has not been a more masterly display of welding diplomacy and military force into a lethal sword, creating a new nation of hundreds of millions in just 10 days,taking almost 100,000 prisoners-of-war in the process,defying two nuclear powers,allies of Pak, in the process.

The Emergency was imposed because of the use of anarchy by the opposition to unseat her after they lost the general election.A relative of my father,who held a top post in the P&T,told me as I argued with him against the Emergency, that they had intercepted a massive amount of conspiratorial anti-state communications aimed at disrupting law and order.The opposition and JP wanted the armed forces and paras to mutiny.One can understand her reasons for imposing it,but she failed in seeing that her minions did not become petty-minded commissars,puffed with ego and bent upon revenge and a son out of control.Realising her mistake she called for elections,was thrashed, but bounced back just two years later thanks to the motley Janata Party's internal contradictions.Sanjay's death robbed her of her chief advisor who was fast becoming the real power in the country.Her political sharpness of mind began to fail her from the time his death.

In the early '80s,the Cold War was at its height and even as she took over the mantle of leader of the Non-Aligned nations,Lanka erupted and the Punjab exploded.Her handling of Bhindranwale and the Khalistani movement was a disaster,leading to her worst decision of all,Op Bluestar,where she signed her own death warrant by sending in the troops into the Golden Temple.I do not know who her closest advisers were at that time,but they let her down badly.Someone on telly said that Gen.Sunderji told her that it would all be over in a few hours.Are there any other insights into that fateful decision? Zail Singh is said to have pleaded with her not to do so.

In retrospect,Indira lived and ruled India during "interesting times".RK Dhawan said that she never had a peaceful night's sleep.Despite the massive problems that she encountered,she always put the country first and the remarkable thing is that though we were so poor,militarily equipped with only second rate equipment,she gave the nation such strong leadership that we overcame all our disadvantages and were perhaps the most respected and admired nation outside the big 5.I vividly and fondly remember the few occassions when I met her,handing her a rose bouquet a few times,posing for a pic with my schoolmates,her signing my autograph book and other moments.Her greatest asset was that to the overwhelming majority of Indians she was their "mother" figure,"ma" or amma".Strangely her closest foreign friend,Mrs.B. in Lanka was similarly called by her folk "maithini" or mother.The two women had much in common.Courage,strength,humanity and their fair share of mistakes too that humans are capable of.

By far she was the tallest leader of India since independence.We will not see the likes of Indira again in our lifetime.

samuel · Post by **samuel** » 02 Nov 2009 20:30

With every PM, I have a few keys associated...e,g, Nehru - Kashmir-take-away, 62. With Shastri - Jai Jawan; Jai Kisan; fast a day; 65. And with Indira - 71, Pok-1, Emergency, Blue Star. It is just as zero sum with her when it gets down to the nitty gritty. But, one thing's for sure -- she was full of grit, giving the finger whenever needed. What followed after her assassination in Delhi, however, has charred my memory and alerted me to the entirely transient nature of the goodness that people show each other in India and the polarization lurking just under the surface.

S

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 02 Nov 2009 20:49

enqyoob wrote:But Jarita: Does this not imply that 1.1 Billion people have only a very small pool of potential leaders? I cannot see why that is/should be so.

This much quoted 1.1 bn figure is not accurate. I've had this discussion time and again with people. Below is a rough calculation to show how small the pool was.
A leader on average takes 40-50 years to mature to national level stature. Which means this person should have been born in 1940-60. Indias population at independence was 345 MM. Only 7-11% of this population was literate. Assuming this population grew to 500 MM by 1960, only 25% of this population would fall under the demographic that would yield future leaders (this proportion has since gone up due to reduced infant mortality etc). We are talking about target 100 MM population of which approx 10% is literate.
We now have a 10 MM figure. Even literacy is a misnomer. My grandparents/parents were highly literate but the likelihood of producing a leader was very low since they were trying to make ends meet (post partition damage). So we are talking about the elite who could afford to educate their kids as well as have some power and clout. As you will agree, the middle class then was hardly in a position to do much unlike the dynamic middle class we have today. My approx is that barely 10% of the 10 MM would have the familial circumstances to allow them to become leaders. You have a number of 1 MM. This is the 1 MM we see today, not just in politics but in media, art, movies, corporations, dispossessed royalty etc. Add to this that the 1 MM was highly Macaulayized and in fact selected over generations for pro colonial, dhimmi attitudes, we dont have much to work with. We had a tiny pool to select from that would materialize into leaders of today. Now what we will see in the next 20-30 years will be leaders from a larger and different pool.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 03 Nov 2009 01:14

Regarding Nehru-Gandhi family.. Do we have answers for these questions?

1. When did the Kaul family changed their last name to Nehru and why?

2. When did the Kaul family moved from Kashmir to Delhi/Allahabad and why?

3. Is Nehru a regular Sir Name about Kashmiri Brahmins or Not?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 03 Nov 2009 02:35

N3,

You can't survive in an electoral democracy the size of India from Delhi without an absolutely huge party structure.

What ties the party structure to the party leader? Especially someone who wants to be party leader in perpetuity? Its usually ideology, personal relationships, patronage or some combination of the lot.

Indira came to power without a particular ideological brand, and with few strong relationships to the party leaders. Yet she wanted to exercise real power within the the party and the country indefinitely.

Even more importantly, how is that party structure going to be paid for?

India's business community and land owning class was the biggest source of the Congress Party's financial base historically.

When the Congress(O) broke away with the bulk of the Congress, Indira rebuilt a party structure by using state power and resources as patronage to win people back and keep them in line.

It was the institutionalisation of massive, high level corruption in Indian governance which became pervasive down to the lowest level.

The IB and police became political tools at politicians disposal so long as the politicians remained loyal to the Party centre. Politicians could divert funds and charge massive kickbacks so long as they passed the requisite share to the party. Companies that did not pay out, or paid out too much to rival parties were threatened with nationalisation.

IG was clearly a committed nationalist whose strong foreign and defence policies strengthened India, but her desire to maintain power at any cost deformed the rule of law and its political and administrative cultures at a crucial and formative period.

I dont doubt that with popular respect for her father, and her own charisma and appeal to the grassroots that she could have rebuilt the party even if she had lost power for a few years. It's too bad for India that she took the route that she did.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 03 Nov 2009 08:44

The state of the Indian political establishment today cannot be blamed on IG. In retrospect, her time is the only time in the past few decades that Indians took the Constitution and the idea of nationhood seriously, because she has been the only truly nationalist leader so far.

Some describe her as being paranoid. Well, as the old saying goes:

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they ain't out to get you!

She was perfectly right to be insecure and to not trust most of those around her. In fact I would say that she had more faith in ABV than in her own sycophantic partymen, or her own family (e.g., Maneka). And in the end, the one act of faith that she resolutely stuck to, i.e., keeping the Sikh bodyguards on, keeping faith in the Constitution and its guarantees, caused her untimely demise. Can you imagine Putin keeping on Chechens or Ukrainians in his bodyguards? Or Thatcher having a couple of Irish Protestants guarding her? Or Blair a couple of Pakistani-British? Or Bush a couple of Iraqi Americans?

There is no basis for calling her paranoid, in fair comparison with what most other world leaders had to suffer.
As for trading favors and establishing a patronage system, well.. is Britain or the US any different? Probably far worse.

As for the endemic corruption, that has always been there. Forget the claims of the Pure Ancient Civilization where there was no corruption, it simply did not exist like that. Until the idea of hereditary leadership is put to rest, there is not much hope of improvement. In fact today's generation seems to have little use for the Constitution or any such idea of sharing power and rights with everyone else.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 03 Nov 2009 09:08

Can you imagine Putin keeping on Chechens or Ukrainians in his bodyguards? Or Thatcher having a couple of Irish Protestants guarding her? Or Blair a couple of Pakistani-British? Or Bush a couple of Iraqi Americans?

a nitpick, the sikh identity in India does not even remotely resemble the correspondence between these ^^^ identities and the countries mentioned. people of the sikh community have been as Indian as any, the same can't be said of the chechens or the irish catholics where the conflict took the form of of inter-ethnic/inter-faith violence. In India's case, even at the worst times it was never a war against the sikh community, only the terrorists supported by outsiders.
IMHO IG's decision should be looked at in this context, the general decision itself wasn't wrong, the screening process wasn't good enough.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Nov 2009 09:34

It is stretch of the imagination and Truth that IG belived and adhered to the Constitution in spirit or letter . IMHO, she is dead and gone with all of her good and bad deeds. There is no need to remember her at all , it is better to forget her. Women in power has to prove themeselves to be better than men and doing so they go to any extent and IG did the same at the cost of many lives lost in internal dissent caused by her egocentric policies accumulating personal power.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 03 Nov 2009 09:36

>> In India's case, even at the worst times it was never a war against the sikh community, only the terrorists supported by outsiders.

Khalistan movement had massive support in rural Punjab during one time. So in a sense the govt had to wage a war against the entire sikh community in rural punjab.

BlueStar ~ this name itself has many connotations .. blue is the colour of the akaalis and a rising star of those days was Bhinderanwale. Hence Bluestar.

Google Operation Woodrose* and read some sikh links
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Operation_Woodrose
http://www.sikhlionz.com/operationwoodrose.htm

there is some truth in those accounts as well.

*wood refers to hinterlands/countryside and rose refers to the amritdhari turban or dumalla.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 03 Nov 2009 09:42

Prem wrote:It is stretch of the imagination and Truth that IG belived and adhered to the Constitution in spirit or letter . IMHO, she is dead and gone with all of her good and bad deeds. There is no need to remember her at all , it is better to forget her. Women in power has to prove themeselves to be better than men and doing so they go to any extent and IG did the same at the cost of many lives lost in internal dissent caused by her egocentric policies accumulating personal power.

I can't believe how sexist that statement is. You must be 70 years old.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 03 Nov 2009 09:49

Philip wrote:The Emergency was imposed because of the use of anarchy by the opposition to unseat her after they lost the general election.A relative of my father,who held a top post in the P&T,told me as I argued with him against the Emergency, that they had intercepted a massive amount of conspiratorial anti-state communications aimed at disrupting law and order.The opposition and JP wanted the armed forces and paras to mutiny.One can understand her reasons for imposing it

This is too much like putting lipstick on a pig. The Emergency was imposed after the Allahabad high court had fired her from the job. Looking at what she did after the court ruling, I would not hold it against the Opposition if they saw ahead and tried to get the armed forces to rebel against her.

And she (and Congress) seem to have had an ongoing tussle with Sikhs since the Emergency. Wiki has this to say, although the cited source is not available online -

According to Amnesty International, 140,000 people had been arrested without trial during the twenty months of Indira Gandhi's Emergency. Of them, 40,000 had come from India's two percent Sikh minority