Indian Interests

[Stan_Savljevic]

Commies are filth simply because they put a foreign powered ideal over and above national and civilizational interest, though that ideal and national interest may sometimes overlap!

If you cant get the difference between "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "a foreign ideal over [arbitrarily defined] national/civilizational interests," let the reality that you are talking to the forum's unabashed self-declared traitor/sellout/"anglo-brahmin"/DIE/RAPE with a skewed moral compass hit you . I will any day be happy to be associated with an idiotic a-religious crowd than with an idiotic religulous crowd that appellates itself as Indic/dharmic.

Sanku mian, you can talk as much as you want about how you belong to the select club of "I know," fact is, if you knew and you were yakking in public like the way you do, you would have been ripped a fresh one under OSA, as simple as that. All that just means, you believe you think you know which I will treat it as "persist with the belief." Dont be too hurt when someone points out that Nehru/INC/CPM are not traitors or rotfls at such ridiculous claims.

[Aditya_V]

Commies are filth simply because they put a foreign powered ideal over and above national and civilizational interest, though that ideal and national interest may sometimes overlap!

" Dont be too hurt when someone points out that Nehru/INC/CPM are not traitors or rotfls at such ridiculous claims.

Yes but some of Nehru actions I am not in agreement and I cant fathom why he performed these are:-

1) Why did he go for ceasefire in J&K and give up on Northern areas.
2) Why did he unilaterally recognise Tibet as part of China without any concessions from them.
3) Why did he refuse Nepal merger with India in 1950
4) Why did he sign Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan with No similar comminttement from China for Tibet from where the rivers originate or with clauses that Pakis agree to behave and recognise Kashmir as part of India. WHy does the Treaty not have an option for India to move out if of the Treaty with a given notice of say 2 years.
5) Why did he not alter British Colonial inventions like AIT, Colonial Dating in History, glossing over of Famines during British Rule etc.
6) Why did he refuse permanent UN seat and give to China.
7) why did he deliberately kept the Indian armed forces unprepared and Mismanaged the China war.
While INC leaders rightly appealed and ensured peace and stopped the massacre of Indian Muslims in 1947, why none dared to go present day Pakistan/ Bangladesh to stop this violence or threaten military action unless such genocide stopped. why did he left under his dis pension gloss over the Partition violence ???


And so on and on... The man made many blunders especially with respect to foreign policy it is difficult to believe one can be so naive.

Regarding CPI (M)/ INC accusing the whole of them as traitors is like saying any person speaking against INC/ CPI or a religious Hindu is Hindu Fascist. But definitely there have been elements, NGO, Film Producers etc. who strongly support Pakistan, have strong ties to the Underworld among them

P.S- Debates on Indian TV on certain issues have been openly hostile against Indian Armed forces while glossing over Paki atrocities in POK and Tibet?? why?

[RajeshA]

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is all fine and dandy! The problem is that the people are first hammered to think of themselves as the "proletariat". Then they are told what the "proletariat" is and how the "proletariat" should behave! Then they set up a politburo to to be the "voice" of the proletariat. Then the politburo keeps their proletariat in a constant struggle against those who prescribe the native civilizational narrative. And then the politburo enters into alliances with the "proletariat" from other lands, to ensure that the "native proletariat" do not lose the struggle!

Yes the Communist Lolly has a great taste of "Proletariat Interests"!

[Stan_Savljevic]

Regarding CPI (M)/ INC accusing the whole of them as traitors is like saying any person speaking against INC/ CPI or a religious Hindu is Hindu Fascist.

The Panchatantra story that goes with this comment is the following: if someone pisses in your house, you go piss in their house; instead if you piss all over the world, your piss is getting wasted and you dont achieve the job of pissing in the house of the person who is pissing at you. I hope you get what that is supposed to mean.

Regarding Nehru, yes, the man made many mistakes regarding J&K accession and china war. As for Nepal, it is a complicated story and King Tribhuvan did nt offer to join India and the offer that came was nt sincere enough. There were some hedging of bets on what the newly emancipated Nepali Congress could do, nothing else but hot air. Plus, Nepal had been for too far separated from British India to become a state within a Union overnight. Why would nt Nepal become willingly a part of India today now that Nehru is long past gone? Because they dont want to be a part of India now, and did nt want to be a part of India then. What has Nehru and folk-tales that you hear got to do with this? Which is precisely the root of the problem. People who have such strong opinions about things could nt go and consult books/articles on these matters and fall for hearsay and garrulous pontification.

Same thing like Nepal, SL also dangled a carrot, esp the Tamil segment to keep the Sinhalese at bay. Nothing came of it. Burma did nt think twice about India after 1937. So all these things that Nehru "sacrificed" did nt even exist in the first place. Bandung 1955 was a success, squaring the circle of the Commonwealth association was a Nehruvian success, rooting out colonialism in Asia and Africa was a Nehruvian success in large part, associating with the Soviets was a part success, looking the other side during Hungary was part failure, etc. Point is, be objective about things, dont be swayed by too many emotions esp if you want to pisk-analyze India of the 40s and 50s. India was different, its people were different, and we had different motives.

[Sanku]

Sanku mian, you can talk as much as you want about how you belong to the select club of "I know," fact is, if you knew and you were yakking in public like the way you do, you would have been ripped a fresh one under OSA, as simple as that. All that just means, you believe you think you know which I will treat it as "persist with the belief." Dont be too hurt when someone points out that Nehru/INC/CPM are not traitors or rotfls at such ridiculous claims.

Tucch tucch, so now its down to making veiled threats is it.



How come I have not been threatened with legal action for hate speech and insulting Indian "gods" yet. Or better still wasnt it N^3 and similarly minded individuals who said that "lets make sure that BRF is not sued for what its members say, and in case any of the Indian agencies are interested we will be only too interested in sharing that information with them" Eh?

No problem I am sure that will come soon too. There is only so much "rubbing the nose in mud for taking logically untenable logical positions" before a person comes through in his real colors.

Meanwhile, you are wrong again -- I DO SAY SUCH THINGS OPENLY TOO. How do you know I dont?

BTW, there is nothing remotely that will get OSA on me. Either here or anywhere on me, I know that much.

Challenge (to basically rub in the point) -- care to share a single thing that I posted which will invoke OSA on me?

[RamaY]

Stan-ji,

I can co-exist with Rakshasas, but not Rakshasatva. Please think for a moment.

Why don't you stay in one thread and make your mind clear instead of splashing your dislike for Indian native-dharma all over the place?

[chaanakya]

I can co-exist with Rakshasas, but not Rakshasatva.

Brilliant Proposition. Ramay garu, , if only we apply this in our day to day thinking.

[gakakkad]

>>please quote the extraordinary physical courage shown by him, which many other less illuminating Indians also did not show

I did not say other Indians did not show courage. Read his biography by Gopal or Akbar or Tharoor (not sure which, maybe all have some detail on a dangerous crowd control situation when someone insulted Gandhi). I also know Indians, much more humble, who have shown more physical courage.

But Nehru a "pathetic guy"? Seriously? And you hold the same view?

No one is saying Nehru did not make mistakes or that he was some kind of saint. But to suggest he did "more damage to India over the past 60 years than anyone else" is beyond ridiculous because as PM he was in a position to do more damage. The implication, however, is that anyone else in that position would have done less damage. Maybe he should have agreed to Gandhi's wish to have Jinnah as PM then. Which is an interesting position to take. Seems more political than anything else. BRF does not bat for political parties or tendencies.

And by hindsight I was talking about ourselves on BRF. We seem to know exactly what the situation was then, such that we can call decisions with such certainty.

I don't know why do you take attacks on Nehru or INC or the commies so personally.. As far as Nehru is concerned , I accuse him of nothing less then crime against humanity or genocide of Indians..

India was pathetically poor in those days. Its MMR and IMR were 8-10 of times greater than the then developed countries during his time.. The asian tigers showed remarkable improvement in these stats.. And nehru , what did he do ? sent his clothes to paris or london for getting them dry cleaned while millions here starved...Imported mineral water from abroad while millions here died from water-borne illnesses...Prevented setting up of any job creating private enterprise making it tough to gain gainful employment for huge majority of people etc...Indeed the slain Romanian dictator of Romania Nicolae Ceaușescu could be called Nehru of Romania for living a delusional life of luxury while the people starved due to his false policies...

How did he win elections after elections ? By controlling popular media , spreading propaganda and demolishing opposition through competitive authoritarian policies.. Indeed the INC is a holder of these legacies.. And branding these monsters as anti-national is actually being charitable to them..

[JE Menon]

>>I don't know why do you take attacks on Nehru or INC or the commies so personally..

This is not personal boss. There is a forum here which we are trying to keep stable, relevant and useful, and perhaps opinion-forming.

It is not just the INC, Nehru or the commies. It is also the BJP, RSS, etc. I've been here for a while, and long term members know this. During the NDA era, attacks on the persons of Vajpayee/Advani etc were legion - and I was saying the same stuff then.

Personal political views have nothing to do with it. I like to think, and maybe I'm wrong here, that BRF is a forum for India, not for the INC, BJP, NDA/UPA or whatever.

[gakakkad]

^^^ sorry sir, i quoted the wrong post.. I meant to address stan...

[Stan_Savljevic]

Stan, I can co-exist with Rakshasas, but not Rakshasatva. Please think for a moment.

I will give you one advise: talk in english, not in gibberish. Seriously...

I don't know why do you take attacks on Nehru or INC or the commies so personally.. As far as Nehru is concerned , I accuse him of nothing less then crime against humanity or genocide of Indians..

Duh, that shows how shallow your reading of post-47 Indian history is.

Why do I care two hoots about whether INC or commies are attacked? Because anytime something inconvenient pops up whether it is on the naxal dhaaga -- which itself is so nicely labeled "red menace" as if being red in itself is a crime against humanity -- or whether it is internal security matters or northeast matters, people tend to crowd around in groupthink notions and forget that there are certain inescapable realities to life. When it happens once, it is funny, twice, hmmm, three times or more, plain ridiculous. Almost everyone that matters in internal security notions in India today knows that the naxal problem is one of the most serious India has seen/seeing/will see, and yet, there has been no consensus on how to tackle it either in terms of State actions or in terms of states' actions. Now if you sit back and think about it (not the thinking of the Rakshasa vs Rakshasatva kind, but just pure analysis), or read about the problem, you will figure that the problems are at a systemic level and go deep into understanding Hindu society, the caste issues, lack of land reform, "tribal" identity politics, mining mafia, Proletariat vs. Bourgeois story, and more. Even this much wont make you fully understand the nuances to the problem.

Yet for all the nuances that make communism of different stripes, we see everything communist or leftist painted as red and ergo, traitorous. As if being leftist is a crime against humanity. Brf has by association made right-wing nationalist and left-wing traitorous. This is what I mean by the "with me or against me" syndrome that is so nauseating. The opposite of right wing is not left wing, but not-right wing. Ditto for the other extreme. If only such were ground reality (as in commies == traitors), the GoI would have been the first to slap a sedition notice on CPI/CPM and ban them. India is the home to the first Constitutionally elected communist government, and the whole edifice on which communism rose in Kerala, the edifice on which communism became a big torchbearer in WB and AP in those days, the cross-connections with linguistic politics and beyond makes for an interesting post-colonial study. When brf has no gumption to undertake this kinda study, and indulges in petty groupthink that explains away complicated problems with medieval Rakshasa vs Rakshasatva nincompoop, it makes me feel sad. And given that I do have the ability to grasp fine nuances and I do perceive that a good majority of the people here can grasp fine nuances very well, it makes me feel even worse that such a complicated task is not undertaken. The first task is to re-set all the brainwashings that people have made up and go in with an open mind to figure out what is going on. If you get too bottled up in BJP vs. INC vs. CPI nonsense wherein one party is de facto assumed to be batting for some random trans-national network in your head, puff, there goes that little hope of grasping the nuances.

sent his clothes to paris or london for getting them dry cleaned while millions here starved...

Seriously, are these meant to be rhetorical flourishes? Were you Nehru's chauffer in those days? Seriously man, the depths to which people plumb to make their point amuses me no end. You want to understand Nehru's policies on education, geopolitics, internal politics, then stop being petty. I dont care whether Nehru washed his undies in mineral water or morarji tonic, I care about what he did or what he failed to do in a no-nonsensical rhetoric devoid argumentation. Is that too hard to make for you?

How did he win elections after elections ? By controlling popular media , spreading propaganda and demolishing opposition through competitive authoritarian policies..

There was a field that was open to everyone, the CPI, the Jan Sangh, Swatantra everyone took part. In Madras state, we had three colored boxes wherein people could drop their votes, people were illiterate at large and could follow politics based on color of the boxes -- that is what I read. We had parties that are no longer existent today, same goes for every other state. Whether Nehru played with popular media or otherwise, you have no moral authority to question a democratic mandate and place yourself as an extra-Constitutional figure of propriety. You are just scoring an own goal in pissing on India while trying to place yourself as a truth-teller. Noone questioned BJP's 1998 electoral mandate, so why this kiddish need to question everything else that is uncomfortable for you? If the people chose a certain party, get used to it and get comfortable that people dont think like you do. Is that too hard to ask in a democratic country? Why this need to piss on everything that is good about India?

[SwamyG]

Stan: If it has not been already suggested, read Arun Shourie's book 'Worshiping False Gods'. Your opinion about Ambedkar will change. There is a rejoinder to the book too.

[RamaY]

Stan, I can co-exist with Rakshasas, but not Rakshasatva. Please think for a moment.

I will give you one advise: talk in english, not in gibberish. Seriously...

My dear INC (Ideologically Non-Citizen) of India,

This is nothing but moorkhatva!

Please learn few things about Bharatiyata before talking about Bharatiya interests, issues and possible solutions. For you English, Christianity, (sic) secularism are adorable and blindly-followable. No wonder you are suffering from Indic-Fobia.

[Stan_Savljevic]

Sorry, dont believe in all that jazz you mention. To me the Constitution is what makes India Indic. You have a problem with that, I cant do much.

[RamaY]

Read Constitution one more time. The sad part is that in your ignorance you think Constitution is paramount but do not understand that Manusmriti was the constitution of the past. Current Indian constitution can be called Ambedkar Smriti for all I care. And it will be rewritten before not long - Please mark my words and pass it on to your children. Tell them that some sage RamaY predicted that Ambedkar smriti will live mush shorter than Manusmriti.

Indian Constitution is all about standing for Dharma and fighting Rakshasatva in people; not the people themselves. You are confusing yourself and are viewing the others from the same lens.

When I denounce a specific ideology within you, you mistake it as my dislike/hatred for you. This is because you think your ego/ignorance/ideology is You. On the other hand, I believe you are a divine person (same as I am) but your ego/ideology is not letting you see it. My fight is with that faith/believe of yours.

My only point to you is - if your Pandya identity is true, how can your associated Hindu identity is false? If our fight is with ignorance, backwardness, poverty, human values how can they be not achieved in the boundaries of our native (this is the key) dharma and what additional value we get from foreign (again the emphasis) dharmas, which demonstrated the same prejudices, racisms, inhumanity, ignorance, and what not that we are fighting to start with?

Why are you not able to read the history of your own native ancestors in Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas and Vedas etc in your own native language so you can make an informed understanding of your own native issues and find your own native solutions?

Why are you so adamant on analyzing your native issues thru foreign ideologies and apply foreign solutions under the leadership of foreign organizations?

[Stan_Savljevic]

Duh!

[RamaY]

Yep. That is the common response of ego/ideology. But try to connect to your Buddhi/Intellect and try to see your true self (Atman) thru intellect; not thru your mind/manas.

You should read the story of Yayati in Mahabharata (Adi Parva). See if you can get AS IS translation of Vyasa Bharata in your mother tongue (Tamil? Malayalam? or whatever). Go to English only if you cannot read/understand any Indic language.

English doesn't have suitable words for many Indic expressions, for example - Rakshasa, Rakshasatva, Moorkha, Moorkhatva etc.,

[svenkat]

Stan's identity is definitely not Pandya.

[Sanku]

Almost everyone that matters in internal security notions in India today knows that the naxal problem is one of the most serious India has seen/seeing/will see, and yet, there has been no consensus on how to tackle it either in terms of State actions or in terms of states' actions.

Actually its quite simple, it is not in UPAs interest to crack down. Period.

Once it becomes so, it will, or if it replaced by some other govt in center before that.

All the "oh my god so big problems" were solved in a year or two once either
1) Patience ran out
2) Ideology at center was replaced. (By PVNR or Atal-ji)

There is one thing to look at details for tactical reasons and another to forget the big picture.

If only such were ground reality (as in commies == traitors), the GoI would have been the first to slap a sedition notice on CPI/CPM and ban them.

Stan your naivete is touching. Does something become right or wrong because "Oh my god the great infalliable GoI would do the right thing"



Like Nehru banning RSS on false pretenses?

There was a field that was open to everyone, the CPI, the Jan Sangh, Swatantra everyone took part.

Really Stan?



http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b2-5.htm

Ever heard of Nehru's use of article 356? Considering how you keep going on and on about knowledge of post Independence political situation, your touching faith in GoI is simply put, remarkable.

Here let me help you.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?206277

For the Shiromani Akali Dal, it's something of an emotional issue. Punjab was the first state government to have been dismissed, as early as 1951. Both Punjab chief minister Parkash Singh Badal and Union minister Surjeet Singh Barnala have been at the receiving end of Article 356 in the past. The Akalis, not allowed to complete a five-year term by the Congress, were the first to demand deletion of the offending article. Abuse of this provision is the one issue on which they have consistently remained united.

I can provide more touching examples of Indian democracy with the first past the post system.

Ah Stan, this is not fun. You are taking such simplistic uni-dimensional position that its so easy to tear apart.


Yaar, its one thing to love or like your Govt, but I think you really confuse between loving your country and loving GoI as perfection incarnate.

Also you keep confusing GoI with "the congress interpretation of what GoI should be and should do"

[Prem]

Indian democracy should not translate as Congresscracy which seeds many unenecssary anti national poblems.

[Sanku]

Indian democracy should not translate as Congresscracy which seeds many unenecssary anti national poblems.

If there is a Govt on earth it is the Congress whose true prophet is Nehru -- and he as personally wrote the Constitution with his able scribes -- we now have all that we need.

The Jahiliya prior to 1947 is over, the great days of enlightenment are here upon us.

Lets sing hallelujah.

[Stan_Savljevic]

http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b2-5.htm

Ever heard of Nehru's use of article 356? Considering how you keep going on and on about knowledge of post Independence political situation, your touching faith in GoI is simply put, remarkable.

Here let me help you.

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?206277

For the Shiromani Akali Dal, it's something of an emotional issue. Punjab was the first state government to have been dismissed, as early as 1951. Both Punjab chief minister Parkash Singh Badal and Union minister Surjeet Singh Barnala have been at the receiving end of Article 356 in the past. The Akalis, not allowed to complete a five-year term by the Congress, were the first to demand deletion of the offending article. Abuse of this provision is the one issue on which they have consistently remained united.

Sanku mian, slow down please. Here is a historical record of who has used Article 356 with gay abandon.
http://interstatecouncil.nic.in/CHAPTERVI.pdf
Period Frequency
1950-1954 3
1955-1959 3
1960-1964 2
1965-1969 9 (7 cases in 1967-69)
1970-1974 19
1975-1979 21 (9 cases in 1977)
1980-1987 18 (9 cases in 1980)

If you care to check it slowly, as in sllllloooowwwwly, the most cases in any four year period is under the Janata Party rule where Atal-"ji" and the now BJP cabal played a major part. Whitewashing history with selective anecdotes is fun only as long as the faecal matter gets sprayed uniformly across the room. For all that you see, Nehru's record comes across pretty decently. Nehru is no saint, but he is no devil as you make it out either.

[svenkat]

RamaYji,
While I understand where you come from,it is not as if we did not have prejudices in the past.Since you 'believe' in the 'Law of Karma' does that not imply that our misfortunes was also 'retribution' for the sins of the past.This was how Swami Vivekananda,Gandhiji understood the past.I know of atleast two 'Jnanis' in the 'generally understood sense' who refused to identify with the caste system as prevalent then.One refused to make any judgement-support or criticism(Sri Ramana) and another(whom I shall not name) condemned the denial of common facilities(wells etc) to Harijans.

That there was a crying need to reform some outrageous customs cannot be denied.We need not debate on how they arose,but suffice to say that they had to go.And anyone who contributed to that process(reform) is to be praised.JLNehrus understanding of Hinduism left much to be desired,but he was NOT anti-hindu.That would be a selective/unfair judjement of his world view which again was influenced by the dominant western world view.Nehru was the consensus leader of his time.It was unfotunate that Sardar Patel and Babu Rajendra Prasad passed away early but any one familiar with their writings would acknowledge they were not blind worshippers of the past and were very much in the mould of critical reformers though their approach and conclusions differed from that of JLNs.

There will never be any 400% consensus on social and political issues.Did JLN contribute to stability,consensus,progress.The answer has to be YES in the context of his times.Was he a democratic leader in the sense he represented the popular will.The answer has to be YES again.

This is what JEM/Stan are trying to say.FWIW,I agree with them.Nobody claims he was perfect.But should we diss him so thoroughly and completely as is done often here.Is that a fair representation of him and his legacy in the context of his times.I think the forum is harsh and unfair on the whole to JLN.

My 2 cents.

[devesh]

Nehru is no saint, but he is no devil as you make it out either.

tell that to the Punjabis and Bengalis who were slaughtered while they were hoping that the "leadership" would fight for them. tell that to the victims of Razakars in Hyderabad who pleaded with the Central Leadership to come to their help, but no help would arrive until Sardar could find an opening when Nehru had been absent. finally, tell that to the Kashmiris who have suffered for 60 years, especially Hindu Kashmiris, because of Nehru's blunders.

it's all Point of View saar. for you, the above can be carefully glossed over. for me, it can't. from where I stand, Nehru is a devil. from where you stand, he is "human onlee". But I suppose, if Tamil Nadu was a state bordering on the Muslim majority centers, and it was Tamils who were slaughtered b/c of Nehru's enlightened leadership, your PoV would be vastly different, wouldn't it?

problems closer to our homes ignite huge cries of distress and accusations. while problems vastly more catastrophic far from our home, we couldn't care less about.....the leadership is "human onlee..."

[Sanku]

If you care to check it slowly, as in sllllloooowwwwly, the most cases in any four year period is under the Janata Party rule where Atal-"ji" and the now BJP cabal played a major part. Whitewashing history with selective anecdotes is fun only as long as the faecal matter gets sprayed uniformly across the room. For all that you see, Nehru's record comes across pretty decently. Nehru is no saint, but he is no devil as you make it out either.

Ooooh Stan, are you not going to defend you fav Chacha-jan, with anything more than "open shirt -- torn fly" attempt?

The great Chacha Nehru, blessed with the entire congress machinery, THE party to fight independence struggle, the legatee of MKGs legacy, will now be compared with a rag-tag coalition of erstwhile Congressmen and a decimated political system 30 years after independence.

This is your defence for "GoI is right so there?"

And now, Janta party four years?

Let me see Junta party was elected in March 1977 and lasted till Jan 1980. That.s like 2 and 1/2 years. Max.

Now lets see when the Art 356 was used in the four year period when Janta Party was in power.

Its constituents were (from wiki) surprise surprise not dominated by Atal-ji as you like to claim.

* Bharatiya Lok Dal
o Bharatiya Kranti Dal
o Swatantra Party
o Socialist Party
+ Praja Socialist Party
+ Samyukta Socialist Party
o Utkal Congress
* Bharatiya Jana Sangh
* Congress (O)
* Congress for Democracy
* Congress (R) Rebels like Chandra Shekhar, Krishan Kant, Ram Dhan, Mohan Dharia, Chandrajit Yadav, Lakshmi Kanthamma

Congress (Urs) leaders like Devaraj Urs joined Janata Party in the later stage.

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

And you may like to know that this data point

1975-1979 21 (9 cases in 1977)

That you so gleefully quote has 9 cases of Janta party.

That is right 9. Hint Hint Janta party was not in power in 1975.

So 21 -9 = 12 cases in that period by Indira G.

And as soon as she came back in 1980 she gave tit for tat by also dismissing 9

1980-1987 18 (9 cases in 1980)

You know Stan, if I were you, I would not beat my own drum about "knowing Indian constitution and politics" which you do so quite loudly.

Considering that you are hopelessly unaware of basics such as Janta party rule duration and use of art 356.

Consider -- otherwise, dont worry I am around to correct you.

[Sanku]

R.Did JLN contribute to stability,consensus,progress.The answer has to be YES in the context of his times.Was he a democratic leader in the sense he represented the popular will.The answer has to be YES again..

No Sir, history will judge JLN as a interloper, a charismatic dunderhead who used dynasty connection and love of MKG to get into a important position he was remotely not qualified to fill.

A person who took credit for what others did, and passed the blame for his mistakes on the collective.

It is unbelievable that a single person can goof up so much -- it was the strong group of Individuals around him who carried out the nation building even as he did his best to make their work tougher.

The credit is India's -- the blame only JLNs.

[member_19686]

Nehru is no saint, but he is no devil as you make it out either.

tell that to the Punjabis and Bengalis who were slaughtered while they were hoping that the "leadership" would fight for them. tell that to the victims of Razakars in Hyderabad who pleaded with the Central Leadership to come to their help, but no help would arrive until Sardar could find an opening when Nehru had been absent. finally, tell that to the Kashmiris who have suffered for 60 years, especially Hindu Kashmiris, because of Nehru's blunders.

it's all Point of View saar. for you, the above can be carefully glossed over. for me, it can't. from where I stand, Nehru is a devil. from where you stand, he is "human onlee". But I suppose, if Tamil Nadu was a state bordering on the Muslim majority centers, and it was Tamils who were slaughtered b/c of Nehru's enlightened leadership, your PoV would be vastly different, wouldn't it?

problems closer to our homes ignite huge cries of distress and accusations. while problems vastly more catastrophic far from our home, we couldn't care less about.....the leadership is "human onlee..."

+ 1

What makes creating riots even more attractive, is the sympathy you get for them from secularist politicians and intellectuals. When the Muslim League killed thousands of Hindus in Calcutta, Congress leader Jawaharlal Nehru looked the other way. But when Hindu workers staying in Calcutta fled to their villages in Bihar and started killing Muslims there, the same Nehru proposed to bomb those villages from the air. When Hindus got killed, he didn't move a finger, but the killing of Muslims was enough to blow off his Gandhian facade and make him demand indiscriminate killing. When mass killing accompanied the Partition, mass killings which both sides equally committed, and for which the ultimate responsibility lay with those who had wanted Partition in the first place, communist writer Bhishma Sahni wrote the novel Tamas, in which the Hindus are painted as the villains.

http://www.voiceofdharma.com/books/ayodhya/ch11.htm

He would lecture about "secularism" day in and day out while having done nothing about Partition and the ensuing genocide of Hindus and Sikhs.

He didn't even find it in him to shut down AMU the fountainhead of the poison but Gandhi's killing was enough to make him go after RSS & Mahasabha.

If Nehru wasn't anti Hindu, then no one is.

[Sanku]

Nehru is no saint, but he is no devil as you make it out either.

tell that to the Punjabis and Bengalis who were slaughtered while they were hoping that the "leadership" would fight for them

BTW Devesh-ji, Stan-ji is quite wrong in MANY of his data points. Just simply wrong, in black and white. About data points. Its not about PoV only. There are factual mistakes, aplenty.

If your data points are screwed, PoV ka bhagwan hi malik hai (if your data points are wrong, god save the PoV)

The latest example being the -- defence of JLN is comparison with Janta party 30 years down. Even then he has badly mixed the facts and figures (in fact such basic mistakes that one wonders how can such basic mistakes be made)

[RamaY]

sVenkat garu,

I, for that matter Hinduism, is not against reform. If you read our history the smritis were written and rewritten to fit the times. The smritis were accepted by the then kingdoms/states/society as useful for those times. If we think we need a new smriti let us write it. Even the constitution Stanji worships has been changed dozens of times within just 60 years.

The foundation of our SD is that time keeps changing and the dharma also changes with that. That is why Kali dharma is different from dwapara dharma etc., While accepting the changes our seers tried to keep the basic human values intact, otherwise we lose our anchor/roots (the thing that makes us) and become Asuric ourselves, which is the key point.

My contention is only about looking Indian problems, challenges etc from foreign lens, that too from the constructs given by predatory ideologies like Christianity, Islam and Maoism etc., They didn't solve a single problem till date and they wouldn't in future either. If these ideologies are so right, why would we see the problems that we see in their native lands?

While we focus too much on the changing times, we forget the fact that it is the human mind that is the root of the problem - be it the so-called varna superiority or inferiority, various evil-customs you wanted to change etc. Is there any one and any ism that can guarantee these evils go away once we make them into a law? No. These laws are as useful as the strength of law-enforcement.

Why don't we see our past and current indic problems from this perspective? Perhaps we define a set of dharmic rules and give the power to our ruling organizations the power to enforce these rules without any hesitation, favoritism and delay? When that structure is achieved how different such a future India look from the varna system thousands of years ago, where the whole purpose of Kshatriya dharma was to ensure all varnas are doing their respective roles in the society (for example, even today a teacher or govt employee cannot contest in elections without resigning to his job).

What is the guarantee that tomorrow some other international body comes to existence and that finds that Hindu Brahmins were persecuted in contemporary india because they did not have caste based reservations? Is there an end to it?

My problem with Stan-ishness is that it is rooted in deep insecurity, victimhood and lack of knowledge about one's own history. That prejudice is covered with unconditional submission to foreign ideology. Such minds will never stop seeing the ghosts in everything around them.

[RamaY]

Coming to JLN,

As more and more historical records become accessible, JLN's decisions were wrong even based on the information he had at that time. That is plain and simple. It is a different matter why JLN made the decisions he made.

By that logic even Ravana/Duryodhana did what they could given the circumstances and information they had. And since people were under their rule, that make them good people.

Stan-ji's forefathers were too ruled by the people who had done their best given the times and situations they were in. Then why is Stan lamenting that past even today to the extent that he changes his faith? Why is he attributing the mis-judgement of few individuals to the faith? Isn't he wrong in spite of all the education, knowledge, maturity and wisdom he thinks he got and yet fails to see his illogical behavior?

[Stan_Savljevic]

Sanku mian, you should sip a diet coke and read Annexure VI.4 of the pdf I linked above. For your kind attention:

The general elections to the Lok Sabha held in March, 1977 led to land-slide victory of the Janata Party which formed the government at the Centre. The Union Home Minister wrote to the Chief Ministers of the Congress ruled States of Punjab, Rajasthan, Orissa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Bihar suggesting that they should seek a fresh mandate from the people as the rout of the Congress party indicated that they had lost the peoples' support. Six of these States (Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa) filed suits against the Union of India under Article 131 of
the Constitution seeking a declaration that the letter of the Union Home Minister which was described by them as a "directive" was unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires. The Court held that the letter neither constituted a threat nor was unconstitutional and therefore dismissed the suits. President's rule was thereafter proclaimed in these 9 States on April 30, 1977.

Guess who the External Affairs Minister in this govt was? One ABV. And there was a five member political affairs committee that took all the important political decisions including imposition of article 356. Here are the members: PM Desai, Vajpayee, Charan Singh, Jagjivan Ram, HM Patel. Source: Indian affairs annual, Volume 2 By Mahendra Gaur available on ggle books, p. 10 .

Here are Nehru era Article 356 impositions:
1) (i) Punjab—(20-6-1951) The congress Parliamentary Board decided that the Chief Minister, Dr. Bhargava, should resign. The Congress enjoyed absolute majority in the State legislature at that time. Alternate leader was not immediately elected by the Congress party. In these circumstances, President's rule was imposed following the Chief Minister's resignation. The Assembly was kept in a state of suspended animation. -- {what they call blue on blue}
2) (ii) Kerala.—(31-7-1959) There was a mass upsurge against the State Government on various issues. The ruling party headed by the Chief Minister, Shri E.M.S. Namboodripad, however, continued to enjoy majority support in the Assembly. President's rule was
imposed following the mass upsurge. -- {this CPM dismissal is a long story that was preceded by state takeover of educational institutions that led to Christian groups protesting overtly and covertly}
3) (i) PEPSU.—(4-3-1953) Shri Gian Singh Rarewala who headed the United Front Ministry was unseated through an election petition. Despite his request for continuing for a period of six months before getting re-elected and a request from the United Front party for continuing the government with another leader, President's rule was proclaimed and the Assembly was dissolved. For a long period, after May 1952, no serious business had been transacted in the House. It met on 19th November and was adjourned on November 25, 1952 amidst disturbances and confusion. It was reconvened on December 22, 1952, but no worthwhile business was transacted. President's Rule was imposed in view of the instability of the Ministry, the fact that the budget session was to commence and the possibility of further unseating of a number of members against whom election petitions were still pending. There were also
some law and order problems in the State. Dr. Ambedkar who participated in the Lok Sabha debate on the extension of this President's rule in September, 1953, was highly critical of the Government's action. -- {a case of overindulgence}
(ii) Andhra.—(15-11-1954) After the creation of Andhra as a separate State on linguistic basis, a Government headed by Shri T. Prakasam (Congress) was sworn in on October, 6 1953. This Government resigned on November, 6, 1954 as a result of a noconfidence motion. The Governor, on his assessment, concluded that there was no possibility of a stable government and recommended president's rule which was proclaimed on November 15, 1954. The opposition (PSP and Communist parties) was not given a chance to try to form a Government. {not much could have been done}
(iii) Travancore-Cochin.—(23-3-1956) On the fall of the Ministry due to defections, the Praja Socialist Party was not given a chance. {again, not much could have been done}
(i) Kerala.—(1-11-56) When the new State of Kerala was created by uniting parts of Travancore-Cochin and Madras, TravancoreCochin was already under President's rule. A fresh proclamation was issued on November 1, 1956 to continue the President's rule with
reference to the new State, till the legislature was formed. {procedural issue}
(i) Orissa.—(25-2-1961) No one came forward to form an alternative ministry upon resignation of the Ministry during budget session. {helplessness}

Of the 7 cases I see, there is one legitimate case for overreach. Say the same about JP rule saar. Please finish the diet coke and indulge in your semantics though. I did nt claim Nehru rule was a paragon of virtue, you did that. If you did nt hear me, I said, Nehru's regime needs a patient hearing which is a far cry from you putting a ABV government on a pedestal and acting as if Sri Krishna has come down to earth to resuscitate a solemn need for his Mathura. If I say patient hearing, you put BJP as a victim and claim all unclaimed stuff. Saar, chill pill chaahiye?!

[SwamyG]

People were missing this thread, so here it is. Now it is up to the regular contributors to try and keep the thread within the limits of its scope. Please report OT posts and do not respond to them. I will check in on and off but some mature postors have to help the mods for the benefit of the forum. Post away.

Just a reminder folks, look at the first post of Archan (moderator). It is evident with each BRFite-on-BRFite firing, some BRFites are zooming past a point of no return as far as ability to see each others' point.

[Sanku]

Sanku mian, you should sip a diet coke and read Annexure VI.4 of the pdf I linked above. For your kind attention: !

Stan Bandhu -- if some one says Janta Party ruled from 1975-1980 and ascribes IGs use of 356 to them as well. IMVHO they should go sit in a corner and deeply think about what is happening around them before further debate.

But then that would be me -- I dont know how you want to handle being in face of contrary facts.

Now considering that you are still trying to defend JLNs use of 356 by comparing them with Janta Party. Let me say this, it is comedy circus at its best.

How many counts is the comparison BIZARRE on?
1) Torn shirt open fly argument at best -- bad idea in general,
2) If you are defending JLN defend him in 50s era. (Actually there is no defence but let that be) why defend a 50s JLN with 70s JP??
3) Context of Congress in 1950 (pretty much single pan India party, a common platform for independence, being the 100 pound gorilla then) With JLN being the absolute monarch of all he surveyed - -- 1977 JP? Rag tag collection of old congressmen, and all non congress forces like DMK and AIADMK in the same side (wow) Right wingers, far leftists together. No ideology, no cohesion nothing.
4) This is post IG era of "a 356 a day keeps the opposition at bay"

This is your comparison for JLN? 30 years apart, comparing chalk and cheese. Wow.

The overall point was misuse of 356 by JLN to fix issues -- and you magically pick up one arbit book and spin it to mean ONE overreach?

This is comedy. JLN starting from the time of fixing Bose's exit from Congress, has never strayed from the path of nipping political opposition, both within and without congress by nefarious means.

Let me quote one overreachs closer home

1) http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/oct/31art.htm

Recalling the dismissal of the Namboodiripad government in Kerala, among the first uses of Article 356, Justice Sachar said the state government was dismissed despite Pandit Nehru declaring that there was no breakdown of constitutional machinery and that the government would stay.

Pandit Nehru was overruled by his own party president and daughter Indira Gandhi who was for dismissing the Namboodiripad government.

''If Pandit Nehru could not resist the misuse of Article 356, no one else can,'' Justice Sachar said.

I can go on and on with all other 7 cases but the problem is not with the facts of the case, the problem is --

Of the 7 cases I see, there is one legitimate case for overreach.

7 khoon maaf eh.

That is because you are white washing history boss. You have taken 7 murders and claim perhaps one. It shows YOUR bias. Correct yourself -- you are messing history.

I would strongly urge you to walk into the light.

[Stan_Savljevic]

On the one hand, Justice Sachar's report on Muslim status in India is anathema. But on the other hand, his claim that there was no breakdown in law and order in Kerala is kosher. Boss, this is called selective gymnastics . You gotta pick everything someone says, will you agree with Sachar Committee report then?

Regarding Art. 356 usage as being overused in JP rule, I meant 77-80 onlee. Do take a look closely at what all was done in those days. Instead of asking me to read, do read the pdf I put a link for. Even that shows nuff games that the JP and INC did in those days. Again, INC was/is no saint, but nor was Jan Sangh, nor is BJP today. If thats hard to get, sorry.

Why should 50s not be compared with 70s? Because it portrays ABV in a bad light? Because you say so? Come up with better reasoning saar.

[brihaspati]

It is not subversion of the parties I'm talking about. It is the forum. We cannot have abusive language against anyone from any party (God knows I've had to control myself agains the commies).

Points of view are OK, and dissent is OK... It is pointless to keep stating this.

No one is disputing or saying we cannot have dissent. But why get abusive and come out with one-liners with just abuse? Do you think this is OK? Obviously not. But that was what that post was about, and nothing more. And worse, because as far as I know, none of those ministers served unwillingly under Nehru's premiership.

I had already written that we should not write abusive personal qualifiers - and I personally try to be careful. You will not see common cursing/swearing stuff in my writings. But you had actually asked me whether I "hold the same view" about a certain qualifier attached to Nehru ji, by another poster. This is a personal question which is rhetorical and I am not bound to answer. I may choose to reserve my judgment on this question but refuse to write it out publicly. Since you repeated this question in your subsequent post - I thought you would not see anything wrong in asking you a similar rhetorical question directed to you for your personal opinion:

>>When you are told that your neighbour who is greeting you overtly in the streets is actually planning to set your house on fire and kidnap your niece - would you deny and denounce the person who warns, and urge your brother not to move to a safer location, dismissing such neighbourly threat as bunkum? Especially when your own daughter is in a safe and well protected location? Even when the neighbour actually has set the fire on, and you are safe with your daughter in a safe location - you would still urge your brother to stay put - because it is a sign of courage and strength to face hurt and pain? And after all that if a future generation looks back at what you said and did - in stages - even after "knowing" and being "warned" - you would expect them not to suspect your "motives" or your "character"? Would you expect them to shut up and show respect and give you the benefit of doubt - that you were perhaps not aware of the "reality" - even when you had been warned about the potential attack?

But to which you respond with

Who is expecting and demanding these things? On BRF anyway? The above is a "Would you beat your wife?" set of questions... Rhetoric. You might as well have provided the answer too.

Further, these "set of questions"=="rhetoric" [I hope you don;t think that your single speculative question about my personal opinion whether I share the same abusive qualifier with another poster - about Nehruji - is not rhetoric becuase it is only one question.] become extended by association to :

Looks like a simple request for civil behaviour is not getting through and you as someone who has been on BRF for a while is looking to give excuse to this sort of thing rather than standing with the principle of keeping the forum stable. Which is a pity really. This is not really going to hurt Nehru's image, only BRFs.

Now I am puzzled as to in what way I have given "excuse" for "abusive" behaviour, or the request for civil behaviour is not getting through - to whom - to me? In what ways have I been uncivil? My "rhetorical" set of questions does not mention Nehruji personally - but poses a simple set of stark imagery. It is not abusive to anyone in particular - but asks your opinion as whether you would not "expect" the "opinions" questioning the character and motivations of such a person described rhetorically. If you knew what my opinion is about using the "qualifier" about Nehruji, you would not really ask me - would you? So what is surprising in asking you a similar opinion piece on a hypothetical scenario?

>>JLN was given warnings and pointed out the reality - which he openly denied and tried to dismiss, and even worse, suppress. Many of his private correspondence indicates that he was well aware of the real potential consequences - but he pretended publicly otherwise, and made sure by his actions and words - that the very people most likely to suffer would be left unprotected and unprepared.

I disagree pretty much totally with the grand deception you are saying Nehru engaged in there, against Indians (and for what?) ... but that's OK. You have your views. I have mine. And we probably both read the same things to arrive at somewhat different conclusions.

Of course - we can totally disagree . But it seems we are reading completely different histories. Or each of us is taking care not to read about the histories that may contradict our assertions. So far I have really really searched for evidence of stuff like "courage" and "intellectual/planning/nation-building ideas" that can be identified as his - and his alone. I have not found them - and hence I eagerly asked for those incidents - since you seem to have references for them. You see, I am not averse to reading other side of the coin too. But you seem to be unaware of aspects of Nehruji based on which one may - just may, find similarities to the rhetorical set of questions I have posed.

I think I raised this issue before - but since that aspect of Nehruji seems to wash away from our collective consciousness very very quickly, [so that one is almost tempted to think that there is an underlying pressure to forget that aspect of Nehruji as quickly as possible] I will repeat those issues again in another post.

[Stan_Savljevic]

"intellectual/planning/nation-building ideas"

May be you should provide an example of some leader of India who has/had these ideas on his/her own? If its Sardar Patel, then he was answerable to Nehru and so by appointing Sardar Patel to Home Ministry, Nehru did a bigger job. If its someone else, I would like to see who is the ideal precept of an Indian nation builder in the post-47 era.

[RamaY]

Duryodhana made Sri Krishna a god. So Duryodhana is a prophet!

[brihaspati]

"intellectual/planning/nation-building ideas"

May be you should provide an example of some leader of India who has/had these ideas on his/her own? If its Sardar Patel, then he was answerable to Nehru and so by appointing Sardar Patel to Home Ministry, Nehru did a bigger job. If its someone else, I would like to see who is the ideal precept of an Indian nation builder in the post-47 era.

But he "contributed" more than anyone else could - isnt it? [he imagined/planned/built/ran IIT's, he imagined/planned/executed "Planning Commission" and "five year plans", etc...] what was his "unique" contribution ? Or are you saying "appointing" Sardar the home-minister was the height of his unique "contribution"?

[devesh]

Dhritarashtra and Karna also were reverent towards Krishna on many occasions! so, look how great they were!!! one directly caused the war by his putra-akanksha while the other cast the dye when he took part in insulting Draupadi....

oh...look at Nehru. he appointed Sardar!!! he was appointed by MKG!!!!!!! absolved of all sins and became a "Stellar" statesmen.

[Stan_Savljevic]

No, I am asking you a simple question. Who in your opinion "contributed" the most to India's nation building in the post-47 era? If you claim that Nehru was not that person, I am pretty sure there was someone else. Dont duck and weave around, just let us know who this person was .