Remembering Indira

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Remembering Indira

Postby Philip » 31 Oct 2009 16:18

On the 25th anniversary of Indira's assassination ,it offers us an opportunity to reflect upon the time when she strode the Indian and the world political scene like a collossus.Her decisive moment in history was surely the manner in which she amputated Pakistan's eastern half and created Bangladesh,after her unsuccessful attempts at getting the west especially the US ,to halt the genocide in E.Pak being perpetrated by the Paki army.She listened to the advice of her army chief,Sam Manekshaw and didn't rush to battle,but patiently waited preparing the nation for the coming conflict,until Pak's pre-emptive attack,then unleashed the Indian armed forces who won a famous victory in 10 days!
Later on,her imposition of the Emergency and Op.Bluestar were controversial .Both acts had their detractors and approvers.Whatever history might say about her and her faults,it is an inescapable fact that she was not afeared to take hard decisions when they were neccessary and lifted the country's prestige to an all-time high after '71 and taking India into the nuclear club.

I vividly rememebr the day she was assassinated.I was abroad and about to meet a Sr.Cabinet Minister of a neighboring country.The news that she had been shot shellshocked us.A short while later,before any official news of her death,a close family friend called up to say that she was no more.There was a strong feeling among some of us that the assassination had a foreign hand,especially as our meddlesome neighbour to the west was stoking the flames of Khalistan.Later on my meeting took place and the minister said that her assassination was "the finest way for a politician to die",dying a martyr.There was some speculation about who would succeed her.He felt that his counterpart Pranab would have a strong chance.I however said that there was no way that the Congress party would choose anyone else other than Rajiv and that was what happened.

When we were students,she was our hero after '71.The Emergency however saw her popularity plummet as news of excesses started spreading.Sanjay Gandhi was a very dynamic person to the youth (not in Delhi!) .The elder bosses in the Congress viewed with disfavour the Youth Congress' growth and twice the attempts of some of us to join the YC were scuppered by seniors.Some of her acts,the imprisonment of the two royal Queens of Jaipur and Gwalior smacked of vindictiveness.Her aboliton of the privy purses and titles too seemed mean in the manner in which it was done (Sitaram Yechury on TV yesterday,said that it was one of the demands of the Left/CPM for support for VV Giri's candidacy as President,along with nationalisation of Banks,etc.).Her minions further ruined her reputation by their over-zealousness in pursuing the Family Planning scheme,taking their cues from Sanjay and his goons.To her credit she held the elections of '77 ,was soundly defeated and took defeat in her stride.There was general jubilation at the Janata's victory,won mainly in the north,while the south gave her 150+ seats.Internationally,the leaders of the West thought her finished and so did many of our Asian nations,but just two years on,as predicted by a family friend who was a long time MP,the infighting in the disparate members of the Janata Party who could not put the country before their personal ambitions saw Indira back in the saddle with a bang.

At a time right now,when the Indian sub-continent is in deep crisis and India is being threatened by old foe China,we wish that our current rulers look to her example and take a few cues from her methods and courage in handling such crises to India's advantage.If Sardar Patel was the "Iron Man" of India,then Indira was the first "Iron Woman" of the world.Time magazine had this caption on its cover after the victory of '71,"Empress of India".That she truly was.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5278
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Pranav » 31 Oct 2009 18:26

Indira Gandhi is an interesting case study.

She was very much entangled with the international mafia. Her ascent to power was facilitated by Lal Bahadur Shastri's death - which LBS's family suspects was an assassination.

After her death, an inquiry committee report mentioned that "the needle of suspicion pointed towards RK Dhawan". Obviously, Dhawan would not take such an initiative on his own - who was backing him is not known. If the mafia makes you, the mafia has the right to break you.

The head of the investigating commission, Justice M. P. Thakkar, described Mr. Dhawan's responses to questioning on the assassination as unreliable and said that the ''needle of suspicion significantly points to his complicity or involvement.''

The judge cited the manner in which Mr. Dhawan purportedly delayed a television interview by half an hour on the day of the assassination, a delay that enabled the Sikh guards to swap duties with other personnel and be in striking range of Mrs. Gandhi.

The judge said that Mr. Dhawan knew one of the assassins, Beant Singh, who was killed by loyal troops soon after the assassination. Mr. Dhawan has denied this. The other assassin, Satwant Singh, and a third Sikh, a former government clerk named Kehar Singh, were executed last January after a four-year trial. A fourth Sikh, who was a policeman at Mrs. Gandhi's residence, was acquitted of conspiracy charges.

Justice Thakkar said Mr. Dhawan had ordered officials not to make any major changes in Mrs. Gandhi's security without ''his prior approval.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/28/world ... death.html


She was highly corrupt, and is said to have stashed her wealth in Swiss banks, thus increasing her vulnerability to foreign blackmail. Her misguided economic policies stifled India for decades. Bhindranwale, Prabhakaran and the Emergency are a part of her legacy.

But yes, she did have a nationalistic streak.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby chetak » 31 Oct 2009 19:30

She was the only man in her cabinet.

Had she lived, I don't think the pakis would have wagged their circumcised tails too much.

Nothing like the namby-pambies who followed her, with the exception of PVN and possibly ABV.

Sharm el sheik indeed!!!

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2387
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Yogi_G » 31 Oct 2009 19:36

All I can say of Indira is that she gave the best treatment to countries like Chinese and Americans who only respect power. Indira realized that Dharma powered behaviour as was displayed by her Father will not work with such countries. She displayed Machismo and excellent strategic thinking which checkmated both the Chinese and the Americans during the 71 war and put them back in their place.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49648
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby ramana » 31 Oct 2009 21:28

Philip, Thanks for starting the thread. Its important to learn from her how decisions are made from Indic point of view. Yes she had some bad decisions but the good she did far outweighs the bad. Please keep it clean and no rants.
Midway I want people to use the Thinking in Time template which I will post soon.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby jamwal » 31 Oct 2009 21:40

Indira Gandhi is an overhyped character IMHO.
Her actions brought more damage to India than any other Prime Minister. Her biggest failures were Emergency and Sikh militancy.
The real hero in the war of 1971 was FM Sam Manekshaw, NOT Indira. How can anyone call her "Kali/Durga" when she was actually twiddling her thumbs when 100s of innocents were dying in Punjab and 1000s of Chakma refugees streaming into India daily ?
She was a megalomanic who took any concrete action only when her PM chair was under threat as "proved" by Operation Bluestar and imposition of emergency.
I can only give her credit for not buckling under US pressure in 1971.

PS: Forgot to add the goodwill gesture of releasing 90000 Baki POWs just like that.

derkonig
BRFite
Posts: 953
Joined: 08 Nov 2007 00:51
Location: Jeering sekular forces bhile Furiously malishing my mijjile @ Led Lips Mijjile Malish Palish Parloul

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby derkonig » 31 Oct 2009 22:04

jamwal wrote:Indira Gandhi is an overhyped character IMHO.
Her actions brought more damage to India than any other Prime Minister. Her biggest failures were Emergency and Sikh militancy.
The real hero in the war of 1971 was FM Sam Manekshaw, NOT Indira. How can anyone call her "Kali/Durga" when she was actually twiddling her thumbs when 100s of innocents were dying in Punjab and 1000s of Chakma refugees streaming into India daily ?
She was a megalomanic who took any concrete action only when her PM chair was under threat as "proved" by Operation Bluestar and imposition of emergency.
I can only give her credit for not buckling under US pressure in 1971.

PS: Forgot to add the goodwill gesture of releasing 90000 Baki POWs just like that.



I totally agree. Indira list of crimes also include the nationalization of industries, stifling of Indian economy & ofcourse never forget that she was the architect of the Emergency. All the garibi-hatao & aam-admi hogwash that the Con-gress peddles owes its origins to her. Emergency & the systematic subversion of democracy, subversion of popular mandates, elimination of opposition all began with her. What is even worse, is that all of these continue till date with increased vigour.

Her biggest crimes of course remains injecting the twin venoms of sekoolaarism & socialism into the Indian society.
The Indic civ. is paying a heavy price for her sins.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49648
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby ramana » 31 Oct 2009 22:14

I said no whines.

If you can post them with out whining do so. Or face the natija.

Kedar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 38
Joined: 23 Jan 2002 12:31
Location: Santa Clara, PRC (People's Republic of California)

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Kedar » 31 Oct 2009 22:18

I know it is not right to speak of the dead the say but let's put a few things in perspective.....

Good

1) Without a doubt the biggest acheivement was splitting TSP. Imagine Bangladesh still being a part of the TSP and Paki nukes (alongwith Chinese and possibly American troops and weapons) pointing from the Eastern side as well.

2) Ruthlessly supressing the Naxalites. While the current Maoists might be a strong parallel force, the Naxalites of the late 60s and early 70s were a much stronger force and India at that time did not have as much resources to fight them. Thanks to her and some capable Chief Ministers like J. Vengal Rao (AP), SS Ray (West Bengal) and Karunakaran (Kerala) she was able to crush the movement with a strong hand.

3) Tough woman - She was a very tough woman and as an American reporter once correctly remarked, "she is the only man in the Parliament". Even people like Thatcher and Imelda Marcos looked up to her as a role model. Could definitely stand eye-to-eye with the strongest world leaders of the time.

Bad

1) Socialist policies - While a lot of blame is atributed to Nehru for socializing the economy, I don't blame him much. In fact I give him credit for setting up many large industries since the Indian private sector was incapable of such investments at that time. I blame Indira for nationalizing a lot of industries from banks, coal mines, textile industries to even private buses in many parts of the country. Many an enterpreneur being paupers due to her nationalization and the government would pay pittance for their assets. I personally know a few such cases. The sword of Damocles was always hanging on the Indian business class in the form of nationalization.

2) Communalization of politics - While she was not the prime minister in 1959 when EMS Namboodripad's government was brought down in Kerala and President's rule was imposed in that state, it is an open secret that it was her and not Nehru who was behind all the dirty goings on. EMS govt had the distinction of being the first democratically elected Communist govt in any part of the world. Many theories abound in why his govt was bought down including the role of Christian Church. The state govt was planning to take over all educational institutions including the Convent schools and make education egalatrian. However, the really bad thing that Indira did was to take the support of Muslim League and give it back the respectability it had lost after the partition. Until then Indian politics post partition wasn't so communal.

Even later caste and religious politics became much more pronounced under her rule e.g. KHAM in Gujarat (Kshatriya Harijan Adivasi Muslim).

3) Autocratic rule - Indira Gandhi was many a times compared to Aurangzeb; a person who could not tolerate any opposition even at the state government level. She tried to undermine many of them and used very dirty tricks to get rid of many of them including NTR in Andhra, Nar Bahadur Bhandari of Sikkim. However, two of them really hurt India and one of them even ended up making her lose her own life. They are Kashmir and Punjab.

Kashmir - While the average Kashmiri had many issues like an average Indian (Roti, Kapada, Makan), they were getting reconciled to being a part of India. Indira's meddling and the farce of the elections in taking out Farooq Abdullah and installing his brother-in-law Ghulam Mohammed Shah was considered a humiliation by many Kashmiris and their disenchantment with India can be traced back to quite an extent to this cause.

Punjab - Bhindranwale was her Frankenstein. Will explain more later.

4) Slogan baazi and deficit spending - While slogans like Garibi Hatao were great slogans, the fact is that her decades of deficit spending was one reason why India had the fiscal crisis of the early 90s (not that Rajiv and VP Singh were any better).

5) Some dubious deaths - Someone mentioned Shastri. But what about Railway Minister Lalit Narayan Mishra who was killed in a bomb blast in Samastipur station inauguration. It was blamed on Anand Margis but many people including his family as well as me don't buy that they did it. LN Mishra was getting very popular in UP and Bihar and together these two states account for 30% of India's Parliament. Anyone who controlled these two states could be a serious PM contender.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby svinayak » 31 Oct 2009 22:53


India remembers Indira Gandhi
www.chinaview.cn 2009-10-31 19:57:06
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009- ... 367348.htm

NEW DELHI, Oct. 31 (Xinhua) -- A quarter of a century after her assassination that shocked the world, India still remembers Indira Gandhi as the country's first woman prime minister who was a true feminist and had helped the country through a testing phase.

On Oct. 31, 1984, the former prime minister, who had ruled India for nearly 15 years in two stints, was gunned down by her two bodyguards Beant Singh and Satwant Singh in retaliation to Operation Blue Star ordered by her to flush out Khalistani terrorists from the Golden temple in the northern Indian city of Amritsar.

Image
Rahul Gandhi (Front), grandson of late Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi, pays tribute to Indira Gandhi during a commemorative ceremony on the occasion of Indira Gandhi's 25th death anniversary at Shakti Sthal in New Delhi, capital of India, Oct. 31, 2009. Indira Gandhi was assassinated on Oct 31, 1984. (Xinhua/Partha Sarkar)
Photo Gallery>>>


And today, from an ordinary citizen to the country's high-profile political leaders like Congress President Sonia Gandhi, the ruling party's young General Secretary Rahul Gandhi and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, all flocked to her memorial to pay their homage to the country's "Iron Lady" on her 25th death anniversary.

Political analysts say that even 25 years after her death, images of Indira Gandhi -- the only child of India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru -- live vividly in the collective memory of millions of people, for the generation who grew up seeing her picture on the front pages on national dailies or listening to her speeches on television.

"Under Gandhi's regime, India reached its heights -- with the birth of its nuclear program though fell to its depths with Operation Blue Star. She was born into politics, she inherited Nehru's vision to some extent, but she was a more a hard politician than a then Nehru was. So, India still respects her as someone who led the country via a testing phase," said political analyst Professor Ajay Singh.

Gandhi made the country proud by initiating the nuclear weapons program. As the country's most senior Congress leader, Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee aptly said in a recent media interview: "In Pokhran 1, Gandhi completed that which Mister Nehruhad envisioned. She is the basic founder of technological development today."

In fact, it was Gandhi's "Garibi Hato" (remove poverty) slogan that first brought her real fame at a time when there was a lot of poverty in India, the analysts say.

"This slogan touched the hearts of millions and they voted for her. The next thing which bolstered her fame was her handling of the independence of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, during the India-Pakistan War, 1971. From Emergency, to her ouster from the Prime Minister's office to her landslide victory, Gandhi proved she was the Iron Lady," said Professor S.K. Gupta.

Born in the politically influential Nehru family, Gandhi grew up in an intensely political atmosphere.

Returning to India in 1941 after her studies at Oxford University, she joined National Congress party and became active in India's independence movement.

After her father's death in 1964, she was appointed as member of Upper House of Parliament and subsequently information minister.

And, after the then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri's death, Gandhi became the prime minister in 1966. She ruled for nearly 11 years till 1977 and again from 1980 to 1984 till her assassination which, however, left a legacy of bitterness.

"Gandhi is a great patriot, but deeply flawed democrat -- that is how history should remember Indira Gandhi," summed up historian and author of "India after Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy", Ramachandra Guha in one of his articles.


svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby svinayak » 31 Oct 2009 23:05

Image
Richard Nixon and Indira Gandhi in 1971. They had a deep personal antipathy that coloured bilateral relations.

She was the first leader to give serious takleef to the west and US
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001784.html
Here are some snippets of the discussion between Nixon and Kissinger, just after Indira Gandhi left:

Nixon: This is just the point when she is a bitch.
Kissinger: Well, the Indians are ******** anyway. They are starting a war there. It’s—to them East Pakistan is no longer the issue. Now, I found it very interesting how she carried on to you yesterday about West Pakistan….

Kissinger: While she was a bitch, we got what we wanted too. You very subtly—I mean, she will not be able to go home and say that the United States didn’t give her a warm reception and therefore, in despair, she’s got to go to war.

Nixon: We really slobbered over the old witch. [US State Department]

This wasn’t just about Indira Gandhi herself, they had a pretty low opinion of Indians in general:

Indians are “a slippery, treacherous people,” Nixon said.
“The Indians are ******** anyway,” Mr Kissinger replied. “They are the most aggressive goddamn people around.” [Guardian]

Nixon was also mad at his ambassador for ‘going native’ —

In a White House conversation with Mr Kissinger on 4 June, 1971, President Nixon berates his ambassador to India, Kenneth Keating, for wanting to, as Mr Kissinger puts it, “help India push the Pakistanis out”.
President Nixon says: “I don’t want him to come in with that kind of jackass thing with me… Keating, like every ambassador who goes over there, goes over there and gets sucked in.” [BBC]

US opposition to an independent Bangladesh was quite deep:

Mr Kissinger then says: “Those sons-of-bitches, who never have lifted a finger for us, why should we get involved in the morass of East Pakistan?
“If East Pakistan becomes independent, it is going to become a cesspool. It’s going be 100 million people, they have the lowest standard of living in Asia.”

President Nixon replies: “Yeah.”

Mr Kissinger: “They’re going to become a ripe field for communist infiltration.” [BBC]

Nixon even went to far as to encourage China to intervene on Pakistan’s behalf:

President Nixon then openly courted China to try to turn the tide of the war Pakistan’s way. With the Indian army and armed Bengali separatists winning, the US on 10 December 1971 urged Beijing to mobilise troops towards India, saying the US would back it if the Soviet Union became involved.
China declined and on 16 December the war ended with the Indian army and Bengali separatists taking Dhaka. [BBC]


http://www.globalwebpost.com/genocide19 ... iss_71.htm
The Tilt:
The India-Pakistan Crisis of 1971
Henry Kissinger
Courtesy: White House Years [Boston: Little Brown, 1979, pp. 842-918]

Umrao Das
BRFite
Posts: 332
Joined: 11 Jul 2008 20:26

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Umrao Das » 01 Nov 2009 06:43

So far who ever has posted their views I hope lived during the rule of IG and read news then (ie were suficiently old).

I lived in India during her entire rule and leadership. I will post my views little later.

niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5386
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby niran » 01 Nov 2009 07:54

Mrs.IG was great in many aspect, we all have deficiency, She too had it.

What is truth?? "the glass is half empty" or "the glass is half full" depends upon
the current situation. you might be thirsty so you will yell in great ire "this is half
empty" or you are not thirsty you will say in equal disdain "it is half full i don't need it".

WRT Emergency i will narrate this, a neighbor of ours lost their dog, after mucho S&R
operation it was still lost, one of the kid(yes a kid,ain't a typo) went and complained
to a Polis walla, and in no time a jeepfull of Polis were performing S&R.
try and send a kid to complain in a modern Polis station, you shall know.
The point is the situation demanded it then, people needs some form of fear
to remain straight, whether it is Legal fear or Religious fear, there has to be this
fear.

Nationalization had both Good & Bad effects (as all things are) SHQ family got their
coal mines nationalized so i know how the other side feels about it, but it did
a lot of good too, e.g. huge amounts of people were suddenly Sarkari people,
with Sarkari benefits, Coal remained cheap, Banks stopped going under.
now this cannot be bad, no?

1971: then Indians and India were considered a large "piece of shit" what with
the Chinese drubbing, and the perceived fool and soft PM at Tashkent( yes then it was like
that. LBS's greatness only was reliased mucho later) She performed a "Khatna" of Pakistan
taught Nixon the art of "Thumb sucking" all within an year time. IMO no one has achieved that
up till now.
phew!! today is Sunday, no? i will stop now.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5278
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Pranav » 01 Nov 2009 08:01

Indira Gandhi was not responsible for the massacre of some 4,000 Sikhs in Delhi, Kanpur, Bokaro and other Indian cities which began on this day 25 years ago. But the fact that the influential culprits were able to get away with mass murder — and to get away with it in style, despite several changes of government at the Centre since then — is an indivisible part of the complex legacy she left behind.



http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/01/stories ... 740800.htm

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2258
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Jarita » 01 Nov 2009 09:12

Many have criticized her decision to nationalize banks. However, that was one of the serious blows she dealt to the banker cabal (descendents of the East India CO) in the west and indirectly to the Anglo Saxon combine.
Rampant liberalization of strategic assets and media during the time of ABV was a mistake and the continuation with UPA appears to be deliberate.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5278
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Pranav » 01 Nov 2009 11:19

Hmm... Any idea about ownership structure of Indian banks pre-nationalization? Actually, control of the RBI is what is really strategic.

It is true that it is the supposedly nationalistic BJP that has done a lot of damage in recent times - opening the media to foreign ownership, and introduction of electronic voting machines.

It can be argued that the stifling license-quota-permit Raj was what forced many western capitalists to sell assets to native capitalists. Also, new native companies like Infosys, Reliance germinated in this period, and later flowered once the economy was liberalized.


Jarita wrote:Many have criticized her decision to nationalize banks. However, that was one of the serious blows she dealt to the banker cabal (descendents of the East India CO) in the west and indirectly to the Anglo Saxon combine.
Rampant liberalization of strategic assets and media during the time of ABV was a mistake and the continuation with UPA appears to be deliberate.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19201
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Philip » 01 Nov 2009 14:09

The responsibility for the anti-Sikh riots after her assassination cannot be laid at Indira's feet.She was dead,killed by her own Sikh bodyguards whom she did not want to remove, giving the impression that she distrusted the Sikhs.The blame should be laid at Rajiv Gandhi and the Congress govt. of the day who were in power and did very little to stop the riots.One can understand Rajiv's situation at that time.Mother assassinated,having to receive the VVIps from abroad,etc.,but his statement about "a great tree falling..." was in v.poor taste.Had he just given one order ,"stop the riots at any cost",hundreds of lives would've been saved all round the country and his stature and legacy as a statesman would've been immense.

Bank nationalisation was done at a time when we were barely able to feed ourselves.We were importing food from the US ,being humiliated by LBJ in the process.She identified herself with the poor masses and tried to adopt Socialist policies so as to better their lives.The crony capitalists were the ones most affected,but just as was done in Sri Lanka by her close friend,Mrs.Bandaranaike and her land reforms,the manner in which the party and babu minions carried out her Emergency policies were in the north harsh and brutal in many cases.The Emergency was misused as an opportunity to get even at one's political opponents as democracy was derailed.The arrest of former royals was in v.poor taste too.Even the press succumbed,with the famous quote "when you were asked to merely bend why did you choose to crawl?".In the south the so-called "excesses" of the Emergency were hardly felt and there was in fact a tightening up of discipline all round which was popular.

Her chief mistakes were imposition and mishandling of the Emergency and Op .Bluestar,which need not have happened if opportunistic policies in creating the monster that Bhindranwale became had not been adopted in the first place.Some also blame her for giving into pak at Simla.In retrospect,it might look like weakness-just as Bush Sr. spared Saddam after GW 1.But any imposed solution at Simla would've had the same effect on Pak as the Treaty of Versailles upon Germany Pak after WW1,which Hitler condemned as humilating to Germany and was major cause for WW2.

In the final analysis, I feel that Indira put India on the international map as a proud and strong nation,with a far greater international reputation that we have right now,when we are immensely richer and self-sufficient in food,etc.No Chinese leader would've dared to insult her as MMS was done.No Paki military leader too would've dared to carry out 26/11.We were a "first rate power" not because of military ability,but because of her astute and strong leadership,the most important factor.This is what is sorely lacking-or at the very least to give PM MMS a chance,appears to be lacking,which is why both Pak and the Chinese and the Yanquis too,treat India as a vassal nation,lacking a backbone and an independent foreign policy.Whatever the means and methods she used in her years of rule to achieve her vision for India,controversial though many of them may be,it cannot be denied that she put India first always and identiified herself with the country's destiny.

Rahul Mehta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2577
Joined: 22 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Ahmedabad, India --- Bring JurySys in India
Contact:

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Rahul Mehta » 01 Nov 2009 14:51

.

Namaami Devi Indira Ammaa .

I truly believe that she was Avatar of Durga, NO SARCASM. Even even though I am atheist and do not believe in God/Avatar otherwise.

---

She made many terrible mistakes and took really defunct decisions. eg 1975 emergency, promoting criminals like Sanjay, promoting Bhindaranwale etc. , not taking actions to reduce corruption. And her worst decision was to enact CrPC 1972, in which JurySys was killed.

But given her great deeds like diving Pakistan into two parts, detonating nuke, improving Indian Military etc, I am convinced that she was an Avatar.

---

Once again : Namaami Devi Indira Ammaa .

.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10340
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Nov 2009 14:59

I was most offended by all the "India is Indira, Indira is India" type of personality cult that she let grow around her. Her finest moment was in 1971; and also in 1977, when she finally called elections, ending the Emergency. Politically, she was not a visionary, but captive to the prevalent ideologies; it took further crises to set India on a better path.

I wish the iron will and intelligence with which she addressed the East Pakistan crisis manifests itself in all the politicians.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby jamwal » 01 Nov 2009 15:40

How can Indira be given credit for breaking up Pakistan ?
Pakistan was already on a self-destruct mode courtsey of TFTA(Baki)-SDRE(Bengali) theory. Giving credit to Indira for creation of Bagladesh is like giving credit to MMS for current situation in Pakistan.
1971 war brokeup Pakistan into two. What good it brought to India? Pro-Indian forces in India were eliminated within a few years and for India that country is almost as bad as Pakistan now.
We had 90000 Baki soldiers as POWs and 100s of sq km of West Paki territory, still did nothing to use it as leverage to settle Kashmir issue.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10340
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby A_Gupta » 01 Nov 2009 17:29

jamwal wrote:How can Indira be given credit for breaking up Pakistan ?
Pakistan was already on a self-destruct mode courtsey of TFTA(Baki)-SDRE(Bengali) theory. Giving credit to Indira for creation of Bagladesh is like giving credit to MMS for current situation in Pakistan.
1971 war brokeup Pakistan into two. What good it brought to India? Pro-Indian forces in India were eliminated within a few years and for India that country is almost as bad as Pakistan now.
We had 90000 Baki soldiers as POWs and 100s of sq km of West Paki territory, still did nothing to use it as leverage to settle Kashmir issue.


Go read some history. This didn't happen by itself. The world would have been happy to leave 10 million refugees in Bengal and Assam, and Yahya Khan in charge of East Pakistan. Nixon was willing to pay for feeding the 10 million refugees in return for India doing nothing. In the last moment, the Polish/Soviet Union resolution proposed in the UN would have rolled back Pakistan's loss, restoring the situation to March 1971. Fortunately, Z.A. Bhutto had a tantrum, and the resolution went nowhere.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5278
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Pranav » 01 Nov 2009 18:11

Ideally, post 1971, there should have been Nuremberg style war crimes tribunals, and the Kashmir issue should have been settled once and for all.

But there was considerable pressure on Indira Gandhi from the Soviets that West Pakiland not be attacked, and that the Pakis not be given too much takleef.

The Soviets and the US often behaved as a good cop, bad cop pair. Ultimately both were part of the same international mafia.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby enqyoob » 01 Nov 2009 18:37

I agree with the positives attributed to IG.

Now for the other side:

1. Bank Nationalization. Now that I have sufficient experience of dealing with several banks in the India and elsewhere, and have enough friends and relatives with whom I have argued, at high positions in both kinds, I have to say that there is a huge difference. The Nationalized banks are still vastly more trustworthy than the "private" banks. As for the Customer Service, well... not much difference. Indian "private" banks are, without exception in my experience, corrupt.

The Nationalized Banks traditionally have not made huge profits. That is because they are supposed to do what is good for the nation (OK, "nation" often translates to "representatives of the people" :roll: ), not just a limited set of Board Members and shareholders. On the other hand, many aam aaamis and aurats and their families and farms are alive today because these nationalized banks have helped them despite huge risk - and in many cases forgiven loans. Contrast that to today's situation, say, in the great US of A where hard-working families are thrown out on the street routinely by the crooked banks.

It is a blind aping of foreign press idiocy of the 1970s and 1980s, to still claim that Nationalization of banks was a bad idea when it was done.
This was one of the key items in bringing India forward.

2. "Socialism". Ditto. At the time when Indian leaders went towards socialism, this was a brilliant choice. I think this should be obvious today. "Liberalization" when it was done, was still risky, because Indian institutions are still weak, and have only a fraction of the monetary power, of western billionaires and the institutions that they control.

3. "Emergency". I was old enough to read and understand newspapers through that era, and in fact, I was one of those who dared to go on "Strike" inside a Central Govt. entity (the IIT) DURING the Emergency.

The immediate provocation for the Proclamation of Emergency was that "nationalist" netas (specifically Jaiprakash Narayan, but also including many others) were going around inciting the military and paramilitary forces to mutiny. When they did this in public speeches, the government arrested them, and forestalled the planned nationwide riots by the "Enlightened Bharatiyas" by clamping down Emergency powers.

The US and British oiseules preach and prattle about this, but in either the US or Britain, Jaiprakash Narayan would have been sent to prison for 40 years without parole, and when the riots erupted, they would have been met with armored cars and SWAT teams, and Shoot on Sight orders, with loaded M-16s. So they can go stick their pompous declarations on Freedom u-no-where.

Now I am NOT supporting the adulation and idolizing of the idiot Sanjay Gandhi during that time. IG's Indira Congress, like all entities that manage to win a huge majority, attract all kinds of scum, and these scum of course saw the Emergency as a dream come true. There were far too many abuses. Mostly in North India, where feudalism has never quite been seen to be bad. In South India, Sanjay Gandhi was asked to stay away by the Kerala Govt, for instance.

4. The Emergency was the first eye-opening demonstration that India COULD in fact function, trains running on time etc., if the government got a bit serious about enforcing the laws on the books.

Indira Gandhi's one failure was that she did not send Sanjay and Rahul and their wives to some boot camp instead of letting them hang around the house. A widowed mother's "failure". But again, this was the fault of the chamchas around her, who only believe in dynastic adulation, as subsequent events have shown.

For the rest, guys, India of that time was a desperately poor land, with an economy that was less than some 0.1% of the world's. Yet she managed to stand up to the mass-murdering crooks of Tricky D1ck Nixon and Kiss(myass)inger - and win. She (meaning Indira) gave our whole generation hope and inspiration that we could compete and win anywhere in the world. She gave us a world-class education in institutions that stayed merit-based, non-political, focused and non-corrupt - and we who came with barely the ability pay minimal food costs, let alone for a world-class education! And I think we have delivered.

In IG's time, India changed from the PL-480 Baksheesh Bowl, to a net exporter of food, despite the massive population growth.

And actually, when Rajiv G took over, the economy was looking up. It was he that took it down to near-bankruptcy.

5. Punjab: This was Canadian-UK-US sponsored international terrorism and destabilization, plain and simple. If you read Hillary Clinton's declarations in Pakistan carefully, you will see that the "dream" is still to form a combined Pooonjab-Kashmir entity that would be "strategically placed" and become an Economic Tiger. The worst allegation that can be sustained against IG is that she tried to destabilize this external aggression by putting in her own "our terrorists" in the form of Bhindranwale etc. The Other Side was vastly better organized and funded, so they co-opted this gang instead.

Ultimately, it is dishonest to blame the Punjab Terrorism on the Indian government, without asking why there have not been mass hangings of terrorists and their sponsors in the UK, Canada and US. To me, it is a miracle that India survived that aggression, and the methods used eventually, were about the only way that India could have survived.

6. Abolition of the Privy Purse.

Many have forgotten that this is what cut down the power of the leeches of India, and gave SOME hope to democracy. At least we now have leeches that actually did some hard work at some time conning ppl.

I cringe every time I see India represented by the Glory of the Maharajas in their idiotic crooked-point shoes, among the adoring naked masses, and see the Indian Tax Form (Saral) (!!) asking how many Race Horses I own. It was our generation that turned this view upside, and IG was the leader who took us that route, and called us "Bhayiyon aur Bahinon!" not "anonymous ignorant masses!"

I salute her.

In summary, I see the :(( :(( against Indira Gandhi, parroting the lies of western media, as being the same as the :(( :(( when BRadminullahs do their job. Same behavioral problems, same belief that throwing tantrums will get infinite tolerance. Good leaders anywhere have to face these, and say :P to them.

Those who complain owe it to the rest, to at least take the trouble to consider what might have been, if the decisions against which they rail where NOT taken, and these "ideal alternatives" pursued. For instance, what would "Nuremberg-type trials" of the Pakis achieved? I too wanted them all strung up by their balls, but surviving without a massive US attack was hard enough brinkmanship in those days. The entire IAF could have been "taken out" by a campaign from the Enterprise Task Force, leaving India open to invasion by the surviving tank corps of Pakistan. Or China could have come in and done it for them. Was hanging a few slimeballs worth this risk? Which way would you have gone if you actually had to think it through?

We have a big picture of IG in the living room even today. Not of MG or JN or anyone else. Certainly not of Sonia and Yuvraj. Helps to remind ourselves of what we are. She smiles her enigmatic smile in the faces of all those visitors whose prejudices and pompousness she crushed.

Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Stan_Savljevic » 01 Nov 2009 18:40

A_Gupta wrote:Nixon was willing to pay for feeding the 10 million refugees in return for India doing nothing.

Nixon would have paid diddly squat, if he had his way, even for maintaining refugees. In fact, the efforts of the now deceased Sen. Ted Kennedy ensured that we got a meagre amount of cash subsidy for feeding a huge refugee population. Nixon is worse than Dickie Mountbatten, if Dickie had consumed a nail, it would have come out as a corkscrew. If Nixon had consumed a nail, it would have come out as a snake. There is a recent IDSA paper by one P.V. Rao on the 1971 Senate proceedings vis-a-vis the refugee aid issue. Not for nothing is Sen. Ted Kennedy, sitar maestro Ravi Shankar and the Beatles held in high regard by the oldiss. Of course, post-75 and even to date, BD has nt invited Ravi Shankar who is nearing 90 for one honorary state visit. Very similar stuff for Ted K, but given that he was amrikan, his treatment was a little better under AL rule.

Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Stan_Savljevic » 01 Nov 2009 18:50

Jamwal,
India was threatened with a nuke first strike in 1971 by the amrikans. At the very least, IG should get credit for steering us through the war, breaking apart the dushman, even if everyone would have liked to have split W. Pakistan also. The fact that we maintained silence after the E. Pak victory was because of nuclear escalation. I would guess that 1974 PNE was the case of amrikans pushing India to embrace deterrence. Long before we happened to see china as no. 1 enemy, we have to remember our history, we were threatened by the mega-nuke country. Things may be better today, but we will forget our own history at our own peril.

Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7038
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Muppalla » 01 Nov 2009 19:02

Indira has two phases. Pre-emergency phase of her rule was outstanding.

jamwal wrote:How can Indira be given credit for breaking up Pakistan ?
Pakistan was already on a self-destruct mode courtsey of TFTA(Baki)-SDRE(Bengali) theory. Giving credit to Indira for creation of Bagladesh is like giving credit to MMS for current situation in Pakistan.


However great the armed forces or its generals, it is the political will and support to armed forces which is important. It is the maximum utilization of the opportunity provided by Pakistan. Apart from defeating the enemy we also need to see how Bangladesh was formed and approved by UN as a nation state and the decisive role played by India. India which at that time considered as shit-poor-third-world-country achieving such a thing has to go to the credit of political leadership.

MMS will be given credit if he expedites the formation of Pastunistan and make Pakjab as new Pakistan like Indira did in 1971. The credit for the current mess in TSP should go to ABV for his moves after Parl attack with US. His admin was successful in moving the India centric terror to Pathan Vs. Pakjab fight. Time will tell if the baton passed by ABV is maximised and expedited by MMS or not.

Rupesh
BRFite
Posts: 837
Joined: 05 Jul 2008 19:14
Location: Somewhere in South Central India

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Rupesh » 01 Nov 2009 19:10

In discussions with ppl of my parents generation, i find very little critizism of IG. In fact there was a lot of admiration for IG.
Is it possible to get copies of Indian Express published during the emergency. I suppose they were the only one's printing truth in those days.

Stan_Savljevic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3522
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 15:40

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Stan_Savljevic » 01 Nov 2009 19:14

This is the big-picture drama that went on before the surrender.
By 10 December seven days after war was raging both in East and West Pakistan, the US began to show concern about the threat to the territorial integrity of West Pakistan as a result of the Indian onslaught. A significant aspect of this anxiety was that India might eject Pakistani
troops and officials from “Azad Kashmir”, as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is known. The Indian ambassador to the US, L.K.Jha, was called to the State Department more than once and asked for assurances that India would not liberate Pakistani-occupied Kashmir and would not
attempt any territorial annexation in West Pakistan. Jha assured the Americans that India had no territorial ambitions in West Pakistan, but as far as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir was concerned, India would take a decision dependent on the military situation. He said he would seek
instructions from Delhi. It was this anxiety about the disintegration of West Pakistan, coupled with the hope that a telling strategic signal from America might prevent the separation of East Pakistan, that led the US to order the Seventh Fleet, led by the aircraft carrier Enterprise, into the Bay of Bengal. The Seventh Fleet crossed the straits of Malacca on 13
December 1971, and sailed into the Bay of Bengal. The ostensible justification offered for the arrival of the Seventh Fleet, armed with
lethal weapons, tactical nuclear warheads and strike aircraft, was that it was moving towards Chittagong port to safeguard foreigners in East
Pakistan, and to evacuate them from an area where war had reached critical dimensions, threatening the civilian population. The operational
implication of this move, however, was the possibility of American marines and soldiers landing in East Pakistan and intervening in the
military operations, backed by the air and firepower of the Seventh Fleet.

India was naturally concerned at this development. At cabinet meetings held on 13 and 14 December in New Delhi, apprehension was
expressed by several of Mrs Gandhi’s ministerial colleagues to the effect that India must slow down the military campaign and establish
diplomatic contacts at the highest level with the US and Western powers as well as with the Soviet Union. Mrs Gandhi consulted military leaders who, while recognising the seriousness of the threat posed by the Seventh Fleet’s intervention, advised against a slowdown in the campaign, whatever the consequences. The Ministry of External Affairs also advised that succumbing to US pressure would affect India’s credibility and international status in a profoundly negative way. It was in the context of the Seventh Fleet’s presence in the Bay of Bengal that the two Soviet deputy foreign ministers, Firyubin and Kuznetsov, arrived in New Delhi. In discussions with them, D.P.Dhar and Mrs Gandhi conveyed India’s determination not to succumb to US military pressure. They also indicated that India expected the Soviet Union would stand by it at that moment of crisis. It was also pointed out to them that Yahya had formally requested military support under the defence arrangements Pakistan had signed with the US in 1954 and 1959, and under the terms of Pakistan’s membership of CENTO and SEATO. Firyubin and Kuznetsov had come to New Delhi carrying briefs from President Brezhnev formulated on the basis of his interaction with President Nixon. At the superpower level a stage had been reached where the Soviet Union was not ready to jeopardise its gradually growing détente with the US. It desired a practical strategic equation with Washington in the context of the US new and expanding relations with China. The message the Soviet ministers brought with
them was in substance the following. The Soviet Union would convey an appropriate message to the US to ensure the withdrawal of the Seventh Fleet from the Bay of Bengal, and that India should complete the operations in East Pakistan by December end. Once the operations in East Pakistan were successfully completed, Moscow wished that India should declare a ceasefire, stopping military operations in the western sector. The Soviet ministers pointed out that the USSR had steadfastly supported India in the Security Council by casting its veto. However, this was an exercise which could not be continued.

The Soviet Union sent a cautionary message to the US, late on 13 December or on the 14th morning, that the Soviet fleet in the Western Pacific had been alerted about the presence of the Enterprise in the Bay of Bengal and that it would be sent to stabilise the situation in East Pakistan. The message apparently also contained an assurance to the US that India would declare a unilateral ceasefire in the western sector after the operations in East Pakistan were over. India agreed to the suggestions that came from the combined pressure of the US and the Soviet Union. The only stipulation that India made was that it would not disengage itself from the conflict in East Pakistan till the liberation of Bangladesh was achieved. India indicated simultaneously to the Soviet Union that operations in East Pakistan would be over by 15 or 16 December. The Seventh Fleet started to withdraw from the Bay of Bengal
by 15 December. India’s armed forces did a paradrop around Dacca on 13–14 December. By then Indian troops had taken control of most of the East Pakistan territory and bottled up the Pakistani troops at their divisional and brigade headquarters. Manekshaw had leaflets airdropped
demanding immediate and unconditional surrender, giving assurances that the Pakistani troops would be treated under the Geneva Convention and other provisions of international law. General Niazi agreed to an immediate ceasefire and surrender. The surrender ceremony was fixed for 4.30 p.m. on 16 December 1971. The ceremony took place as
scheduled at the Race Course Maidan at Dacca. The signatures of the two generals, one surrendering and the other victorious, were affixed at 4.31 p.m. and the ceasefire came into immediate effect in the eastern theatre. I was told by military colleagues that after signing the instruments of surrender and handing over his personal weapon (a
pistol), Lt. General Niazi told Lt. General Aurora that whatever the outcome of the conflict, he hoped Aurora would tell the world that Niazi had given him a good fight, that he had fought well. Simultaneous with the surrender, India announced that it would implement the unilateral ceasefire on the western sector from 8 p.m., Indian Standard Time, on 17 December 1971. India informed the UN Security Council and all the world capitals about this decision.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby jamwal » 01 Nov 2009 20:18

Stan_Savljevic wrote:Jamwal,
India was threatened with a nuke first strike in 1971 by the amrikans. At the very least, IG should get credit for steering us through the war, breaking apart the dushman, even if everyone would have liked to have split W. Pakistan also. The fact that we maintained silence after the E. Pak victory was because of nuclear escalation. I would guess that 1974 PNE was the case of amrikans pushing India to embrace deterrence. Long before we happened to see china as no. 1 enemy, we have to remember our history, we were threatened by the mega-nuke country. Things may be better today, but we will forget our own history at our own peril.


Amreekans couldn't nuke Vietnam or Korea. What makes you think they'd have nuked India when we had a treaty with USSR
(courtsey FM Sam Mankeshaw)
Amreekans could have sent their aircraft carriers to aid Bakis, but that would've meant risking a confrontation with USSR.

Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2258
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Jarita » 01 Nov 2009 21:51

I agree with the positives attributed to IG.

Now for the other side:

1. Bank Nationalization. Now that I have sufficient experience of dealing with several banks in the India and elsewhere, and have enough friends and relatives with whom I have argued, at high positions in both kinds, I have to say that there is a huge difference. The Nationalized banks are still vastly more trustworthy than the "private" banks. As for the Customer Service, well... not much difference. Indian "private" banks are, without exception in my experience, corrupt.

The Nationalized Banks traditionally have not made huge profits. That is because they are supposed to do what is good for the nation (OK, "nation" often translates to "representatives of the people" ), not just a limited set of Board Members and shareholders. On the other hand, many aam aaamis and aurats and their families and farms are alive today because these nationalized banks have helped them despite huge risk - and in many cases forgiven loans. Contrast that to today's situation, say, in the great US of A where hard-working families are thrown out on the street routinely by the crooked banks.

It is a blind aping of foreign press idiocy of the 1970s and 1980s, to still claim that Nationalization of banks was a bad idea when it was done.
This was one of the key items in bringing India forward.



Thank you. Sick of everyone in my generation parroting foreign media

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15946
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby SwamyG » 01 Nov 2009 22:20

Nationalizing the banks helped in creating a great balance in India. It is these banks that go to small towns and villages with out much fanfare and give out loans - along with other corporation banks. These banks have offered jobs and stability to the country.

Kedar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 38
Joined: 23 Jan 2002 12:31
Location: Santa Clara, PRC (People's Republic of California)

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby Kedar » 01 Nov 2009 22:44

First of all Bank Nationalization is just one piece of nationalization Indira did. However, let's just stick to bank nationalization.

1) Contrary to what some poster called as an Anglo-Saxon hold, etc., most of the nationalized banks were purely of Indian origin and was started by Indians. For e.g. four of them were started in Dakshin Kannada district of Karnataka. Two of them (Syndicate Bank and Canara Bank) by GSB Konkanis, Corporation Bank by Muslims and GSBs, and Vijaya Bank by Tulu Bunts (Shettys). Here is History of Syndicate Bank History of Canara Bank Vijaya Bank History. I am sure others like Punjab National Bank, Punjab and Sind Bank, etc. also have similar histories. Nothing happened to foreign owned banks like Standard Chartered, Grindlays (later ANZ Grindlays), Citibank.

2) Yes, the banks did not lend money easily to most people when they were private. Guess what! they did not do that either when they became part of the public sector either. Except of course if you had the right connections or knew the right people to grease the palms. I challenge anyone to go to a nationalized bank even now and get a loan without using any connections. The only thing that suffered was customer service. My parents used to bank with Dena Bank in Delhi both when it was private and post-nationalization. When it was private the same employees were so efficient and customer was the king. After nationalization the customer was more of a nuisance and may as well drop dead. Typical government babu mentality crept in.

3) We talk about default loans here in the US and the banking crisis. In India also the default loans are at a very high rate. The only difference is that in India the taxpayer has always been picking up the tab so the crisis never came out in the open. Of course, the government (Central as well as state) have been spending like drunken sailors. In the US had the taxpayer picked up the tab of the risky loans then we would not have had a crisis. Because many of them were left to face the music did we have this crisis.

4) Enqyoob saar has mentioned about people getting thrown out on the streets in the US. Guess what! this crisis came about precisely because the lending rules were relaxed. Low, low rates, subprime mortgages, poor documentation just to name a few. When the banking rules were tough i.e. 20% down payment, mortgage cannot be more than times your annual income, full documentation, etc., mortgage defaults were much lower. Of course the greedy bankers are also to be blamed to an extent. But they also had political pressure on them (sounds familiar to Indians). George Bush's plan was to have more than 50% Americans owned their home before he left office. Many minority and civil rights groups put pressure and even filed lawsuits that Banks are not making enough loans to minority neighborhoods.

In India we still have the same stringent standards that is why the default rate is lower. Mortgage rates are at least 2-3 times that of the US. You still need full-documentation. Try getting a loan on a home in India with 0% down, a Rs. 60 lakh loan when your annual income is only Rs. 10 lakhs. God forbid but if you are unable to meet the loan obligations see what happens. You will be met by the Bank's goondas and be out on the street in no time.

5) Another barely mentioned fact is that after the insurance companies and banks were nationalized, then the loans that they had made to all the major corporations i.e. L&T, TISCO, TELCO, DCM, Escorts, were forcibly converted into company shares and the government came to own a significant (and in some cases even majority) owner. While most of the times the government did have a hands-off approach (as long as corporations remain apolitical) they did try to interfere in DCM and Escort when Indira's supporter, the corporate robber baron, Swaraj Paul, tried to take them over.

Some of you might be sick and tired of hearing whines against nationalization but I am more sick and tired of hearing how nationalization was the best thing since sliced bread.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby svinayak » 01 Nov 2009 22:53

Kedar wrote:First of all Bank Nationalization is just one piece of nationalization Indira did. However, let's just stick to bank nationalization.

1) Contrary to what some poster called as an Anglo-Saxon hold, etc., most of the nationalized banks were purely of Indian origin and was started by Indians. For e.g. four of them were started in Dakshin Kannada district of Karnataka. Two of them (Syndicate Bank and Canara Bank) by GSB Konkanis, Corporation Bank by Muslims and GSBs, and Vijaya Bank by Tulu Bunts (Shettys). Here is History of Syndicate Bank History of Canara Bank Vijaya Bank History. I am sure others like Punjab National Bank, Punjab and Sind Bank, etc. also have similar histories. Nothing happened to foreign owned banks like Standard Chartered, Grindlays (later ANZ Grindlays), Citibank.


Five banks were started in Dakshina Kannada dist.
You missed one of the Bank which is still a Private Bank in India- Karnataka Bank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnataka_Bank

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby enqyoob » 01 Nov 2009 23:53

Kedar:

No argument with the point about uniformly dismal customer service in banks. But in both private and nationalized banks in India, customer service is based on personal contacts. For instance, I won't deal with the SBI if I can help it. And I have a close relative who is VERY high up in the SBI!!

Way back when we first returned to India after many years trying to save up return airfare, we knew no one. We walked into the SBI and the Indian Overseas Bank, asking if they would help us start an account, with AMEX travelers' cheques, local addresses, and our Indian passports. Let me just say that we walked out soon from each of those wonderful places. :roll:

Then we went into Indian Bank, whose reputation for customer service is, well.. less than stellar. Their Chennai branches, for instance, are known to give Pakis a run 4 their money in sheer Pakiness. But the ppl in that particular branch happened to be classmates/ buddies of Supreme HQ, and a senior officer was the brother of an old classmate of mine from middle school....

Well... to cut the story short, we have enjoyed customer service of a class that even Bill Gates can't imagine. In that branch. Of that bank. As new managers came in, and our friends got promote away, somehow the service remained as friendly and competent through the years, and we kept our money there even through the times when Indian Bank was on the verge of going broke.

Story in the other banks I deal(t) with, is not so good, and they are all still "private". Have to watch one's money like a hawk to stop them from stealing it. Latest is one of the new "technology-friendly" banks - IndusInd. Phew! What a bunch of morons!

So my conclusion is that only personal contacts get decent customer service. $$$$ gets artificial smiles and invitations to booze parties, but they will try to steal at every opportunity, and regulations and record-keeping seem absent. They are amazed at the notion that a customer actually wants taxes deducted and recorded, for instance.

Regarding your other points, there is a major contradiction.
You argue that it is the relaxation of regulations that caused the mortgage mess in the US. Then you argue that it is hard to get loans from nationalized banks in India. Er..... maybe there is a correlation that I need not point out, there?

Also, it is quite untrue that people getting tossed out in the streets in the US is due to "relaxed mortgage lending". It is those ppl who get the great deals from Uncle Obama. It is the greed of the banks against good ppl who fall on hard times through no fault of their own, that galls. There are numerous cases, for instance now in Florida and much of the southeast, of the Chinese DryWall Disaster forcing people to leave their homes and live in apartments because the poison gases are killing their families. The banks are happily denying all applications for any consideration, from these people, and foreclosing on them.

This would hopefully not happen in India with nationalized banks because the local MLA/MP/ mantri would halt the process, or ppl would sit outside with the Lal Jhanda. Nationalized banks are ordered to give loans to small farmers etc. Sure they insist on good paperwork, and they can be a major pain.

BTW, if you did in fact read, I did not claim that nationalization was the "greatest thing since sliced bread", so please don't get sick. I do maintain that the blind citation of bank nationalization as a stupid move, is indeed blind and thoughtless.

Just as an illiustration of the danger in parroting western sayings, what exactly is so great about "sliced bread", please? Have you thought about that?

Go into a really high-class Italian restaurant, and they will give you a loaf of garlic bread and a bottle of Olive oil and tell you that the right way to eat bread is to dig in with your fingers. :mrgreen: The rest of the Oiropeans and the lower-class Amirkhanis are just dirty ppl who don't wash their hands properly (until Paki Flu forced them to adopt basic hygiene), hence the need to use pieces of metal to dig up food. So pre-sliced bread is about as useful an innovation as pre-eaten food.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2900
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby vera_k » 02 Nov 2009 00:15

Rupesh wrote:In discussions with ppl of my parents generation, i find very little critizism of IG. In fact there was a lot of admiration for IG.
Is it possible to get copies of Indian Express published during the emergency. I suppose they were the only one's printing truth in those days.


That is not surprising because India has had a Congress consensus since a long time, which leads people to excuse a lot if they want to get ahead. But there were anti-Indira people around even then. I had go hide outside our neighbourhood after I proposed distributing sweets after the assasination. I wasn't old enough to understand the volatile circumstances of the event, but I had picked up an "Indira=evil" vibe from the older people around me.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby svinayak » 02 Nov 2009 00:19

vera_k wrote:
That is not surprising because India has had a Congress consensus since a long time, which leads people to excuse a lot if they want to get ahead. But there were anti-Indira people around even then. I had go hide outside our neighbourhood after I proposed distributing sweets after the assasination. I wasn't old enough to understand the volatile circumstances of the event, but I had picked up an "Indira=evil" vibe from the older people around me.

Anti-Indira movement was the most successfull movement created by the western psy ops inside India. Of course emergency and excesses did not help but for the first time since the freedom struggle from 1915 the freedom struggle generation was opposed by the intellectuals and the elite without realizing deep damage to the Indian polity and resulting fragmentation.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2900
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby vera_k » 02 Nov 2009 00:31

Acharya wrote:Anti-Indira movement was the most successfull movement created by the western psy ops inside India. Of course emergency and excesses did not help but for the first time since the freedom struggle from 1915 the freedom struggle generation was opposed by the intellectuals and the elite without realizing deep damage to the Indian polity and resulting fragmentation.


Or was it the start of decolonization of India? Wasn't Indira herself was opposed to the freedom struggle generation?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby svinayak » 02 Nov 2009 00:34

vera_k wrote:
Or was it the start of decolonization of India? Wasn't Indira herself was opposed to the freedom struggle generation?

No, it is rebel movement of the marxist, leftist movement which was nurtured worldwide from the 1930s in the west and implanted inside India before independence and after 1947 culminated in being anti-Indira Gandhi movement in 1970s. It became anti-India (federal state) by the end of the 80s with naxalites. It became anti-Hindu by the late 90s with EJs promoting to create a broad anti-Hindu/anti-RSS front for conversion.
The trade unions and the leaders of the radical parties have been influenced by the west to create disturbances and other chaos in key industries and public sectors, which can cripple the government and also bring the government under knees. This has been used effectively by the western powers to bring the Indian government to the table to talk and yield to pressures. In Indian public sector and government department; one department takes up issues against another department and goes to the court to solve their differences instead of the administration being the mediator to solve differences for a common goal of national interest as in other countries. The period before emergency with strikes was a period of anarchy, which forced the government to declare emergency. Leaders such as JayaPrakash Narayan were in the forefront of agitation but were really influenced by outside agencies. Certain section of the polity has been already influenced by the western academic world and during the cold war the non-communist left has been systematically cultivated so the west can influence the course of politics right inside India.
Since 1975 the internal disorder has been watched very carefully by the major powers. They are extremely aware of the aimlessness of the Indian politicians. The major years which had them to change their policy towards India are 1975, 1977, 1984, 1989, 1991 and 1996. All these years the political disorder was seen as a crisis in leadership and withering of the largest national party – congress party and which was also seen as the beginning of the division of India. The widespread perception was that a weakened central political core would increase the centrifugal force. One of the reasons for this assessment is that the western policy makers have not been familiar with any party which is non-congress and which is totally removed from the independence era. India had seven Prime Ministers in 10 years between 1988 and 1998. Most of the non-congress party rule was during this period. Stephan Cohen of Brookings Institute says the Indian Domestic politics is chaotic, faction ridden and violent in many states but is expected of a developing country undergoing simultaneously economic, class, caste and ideological revolutions. He also says that the center is weak and is unable to create national policy for the entire country.
When there is political unity especially during the earlier congress regime of Indira Gandhi internal dissent have been encouraged to break the political structure starting from 1975. The political decisions have been to known to be taken by few key people and this provides ample opportunities to create disorder by creating suspicion. Whenever there is a strong political unity among Indians anywhere in the diaspora the adversaries have found ways to break the unity. Some riots or controversy can be started which immediately makes the Indian groups to squabble without looking at the big picture political unity for long term. This tendency has been exploited by the anti-India groups against Indian origin people in US, UK and other countries. Recent riots in Gujarat have been exploited by Pakistan and Indian leftist to create wedge inside Indian American community and accuse Hindu groups with alleged support for funding riots in India.
In 1975 ABVP-led Nav Nirmaan movement in Gujarat and the Sampoorna Kranti agitation led by Jayaprakash Narayan (J.P.)(funded by external agencies) in Bihar had made an impact in those States. Indira Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court for an absolute stay order against the High Court judgment. On June 24, the Supreme Court granted her a conditional stay, depriving her of voting rights in the Lok Sabha, but allowing her to continue as Prime Minister. On June 25, J.P. and other Opposition leaders, including Morarji Desai, held a public rally at the Ram Lila grounds in Delhi where they declared that Indira Gandhi should resign; they urged the people to join them in a non-cooperation movement. The following morning, Indira Gandhi announced a national Emergency assumed in view of "threats to national security". The Nav Nirman and the J.P. movements were described as among the threats to national stability. Opposition leaders were arrested, censorship was imposed, and a ban was soon announced on grassroots organizations. Campaigns for discipline and productivity were instituted, including Indira Gandhi's 20-point programmer, but what became most controversial was Sanjay Gandhi's five-point programmer. Two of those five points were mainly pursued, namely, sterilization campaigns, aimed disproportionately at Muslims, and urban "beautification" drives beginning at settlements in the Jam Masjid area in Delhi. The backlash against these campaigns was widespread.

On May 1974 PNE testing at Pokharan
On June 25, 1975 Emergency declared and stringent censorship enforced
On Aug. 5, 1975 Parliament approves COFEPOSA (Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of
Smuggling Activities Act).
On Jan. 9, 1976, President suspends 7 freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Act 19.
24 Jan. 1976, Burmah Shell nationalized and renamed as Bharat Refineries.
On Nov. 5, 1976, Lok Sabha votes to extend its own life by one year in a splendid display of democracy.

After this the congress party lost its supporters and the old bond among regions and regional congress blocks due to earlier nationalism withered away. This was the ultimate motive of the outside powers to reduce the political cohesion of Indian union formed by the earlier nationalism.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2900
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby vera_k » 02 Nov 2009 00:39

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

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Remembering Indira

Postby enqyoob » 02 Nov 2009 00:40

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! :eek:

Vera:

Interesting take on IG's philosophy. IG was the new generation of Free India, someone who had studied in the West in all the "right" places, had seen all that needed to be seen on the High Society of the West, and then very determinedly decided to chart out India's unique path, not imitating the path dictated by any foreigners. So it was not like a rabble rouser yelling "Revolution!", it was a very western-educated, very west-literate woman adopting a very Indian mode of dress, behavior, culture, and philosophy. A truly heady mix.

As for her kicking out the so-called "freedom-fighters" ( I don't associate any heroism with Morarji Desai of urine-cola fame, or with Nijalingappa or all the other fatcats that IG booted out unceremonioulsy), this is what REALLY made her a heroine for most Indians. I don't call this being "opposed to the freedom struggle generation". I call it "understanding that the barnacles have to be swept away for the ship to move on".


Return to “Strategic & Security Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest