Indian Interests

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 15 Nov 2011 02:57

I would put in this order

Sardar Patel
Babu Rajendra Prasad
oops I forgot JLN
Indira Gandhi
PVNR
LB Sastry
ABV

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 15 Nov 2011 03:01

Can you list the nation-building efforts of these people also, please?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Nov 2011 03:06

Oh I was asking for his special contribution - I have not found anyone providing his unique contribution. If you know can you answer that please first - don't duck and weave please?!!

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 15 Nov 2011 03:07

Stan_Savljevic wrote: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 .

it is absolutely Nehru who contributed the most to India's nation-building post-47. of that there is no doubt. I'm not being sarcastic.
If Nehru hadn't contributed so much, I most likely would not be spending so much time on BRF, and more than likely BRF wouldn't have such a large audience....all else equal (like invention and spread of internet).

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Nov 2011 03:08

Then what is the problem with Nehru?

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 15 Nov 2011 03:11

You say, he has nt done anything unique. When questioned as to who has, you dont have an answer or you avoid answering. So it means that noone has or effectively noone has unless of course you come forth with an answer in round 2. In this relative pissing contest, the ball is back in my court?! Might make sense for all those doing a ghulam namaste behind you, not to me.

As an aside, is this one of the tactical lines you learnt when you were in the forest zone doing a one-on-one gusti with nature? Hehhe, makes for one fun contest that I should have seen.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Nov 2011 03:21

No I have been asking for his "unique" contribution. I said I have not found it in the domains he is supposed to have been unique - like "Planning Commission"/"5-year plans"/technical institutions". All of these ideas appear to have been discussed before he took them up. In fact the planning commission/plans/tech education was part of the work of the specific subcommittee set up for this purpose under Bose's presidency, and Bose started writing or discussing this from before I can find refs from Nehru ji. If you have the proofs of originality from Nehru ji- I am asking for them.

As for your other stuff about "nature" - not bad!

Nicely defines the level of your your mental processes perhaps. Those who are concerned about abuse decibel levels can perhaps look into this? bravo!

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 15 Nov 2011 03:25

What have been the unique contributions of anyone in the post-47 annals of Indian history? Can you name a few, or even one for that matter?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 15 Nov 2011 03:34

Stan mahasaya,

We do not see the sycophancy towards any other leaders that we see w.r.t Nehru-Gandhi family. That is the true problem with JLN and his family.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 15 Nov 2011 03:35

Hehhe, dont you think thats a bit too rich given the ABVji sycophancy and PVNRji sycophancy that is rife in the forum?

And RamaY, you did nt answer my previous question: what are the nation building efforts of the people you listed?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Nov 2011 03:44

I asked first - if you cannot give his unique contribution why is it so difficult to say that you cannot find any "unique" contribution from him? as you can perhaps not see given your obvious obsessions with "nature" and its processes - your question is actually not a counter to what I have asked.

Your argument perhaps [not so sure you think like us poor humans who need to be warned about being "uncivil" while you can write that line about "gusti" without attracting any similar warnings! ] - is that if "others" did not have any "unique" contribution either, what is so special to ask this of "Nehruji"! But that still does not answer the laudatory qualitative epithets that have been attached to him on these pages. "He" winded up "imperialism" from Asia at Bandung, "he"....and so forth. Searching for such stuff will probably bring up similar things attributed to - "JLN/Nehru ji did this" or "did that" in the past threads too.

We can take up the imperialism issue immediately. Even I would be delighted to see how "he" ended imperialism in Asia at Bandung. No problem for me to learn new things. Not so sure it is the same for you.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 15 Nov 2011 03:57

You still have nt explained why a halo has to be put on either Vajpayee or Narasimha Rao or anyone for that matter? In fact, without any data points in that direction, your whole argument/whine profile seems to be based on why is Nehru getting the limelite when Vajpayee is not? To bring down that halo that Nehru has which in itself is a reflection of the great shining impressionable India, your whole job is to piss on him and what all he did. Well, there is a simpler route, dear friend, stop pissing. To achieve the opposite effect of a halo, you dont have to make effort to de-halo that, but you can ignore things that have a halo. I am sure you have seen nuff logic in whatever field you are to understand that advise.

As regards gusti, it is one of your claims in some random dhaaga that you were one-on-one with nature. If it offends your sensibilities and makes you explore your often visible victimist mindset, ah I am not so sorry at all, take all the offense you have to take.

PS: And see, I wrote a whole post without a quotation mark in random places, you should thank all the 33 crore gods for that small mercy.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 15 Nov 2011 04:05

Stan, I agree with you, the one man who is most responsible for today's India is Nehru. good/bad/ugly -- for all of them, the biggest contributor has been Nehru.

you think the Good far outweighs the Bad. I think different. It is a matter of opinion on the Good/bad. but on the basic premise of which PM has had the most "Influence" in shaping modern India, we're both on the same page: Nehru.

I rate PVNR after Nehru. we live in a world where the claimants for today's India are Nehru and PVNR. ABV was following in PVNR's footsteps. IG was following in her father's footsteps.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 15 Nov 2011 04:06

Stan_Savljevic wrote:You still have nt explained why a halo has to be put on either Vajpayee or Narasimha Rao or anyone for that matter? In fact, without any data points in that direction, your whole argument/whine profile seems to be based on why is Nehru getting the limelite when Vajpayee is not? To bring down that halo that Nehru has which in itself is a reflection of the great shining impressionable India, your whole job is to piss on him and what all he did. Well, there is a simpler route, dear friend, stop pissing. To achieve the opposite effect of a halo, you dont have to make effort to de-halo that, but you can ignore things that have a halo. I am sure you have seen nuff logic in whatever field you are to understand that advise.

As regards gusti, it is one of your claims in some random dhaaga that you were one-on-one with nature. If it offends your sensibilities and makes you explore your often visible victimist mindset, ah I am not so sorry at all, take all the offense you have to take.

PS: And see, I wrote a whole post without a quotation mark in random places, you should thank all the 33 crore gods for that small mercy.

Stan,

Technically compared to the 1000 MW halo around Nehru/Gandhi, the 100W Halos around these guyz pale.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 732957.cms

None of ABV/PVNR have official public holidays for their death and birth days. They do not have schools having in a "administeratively coerced" way to do some stuff. There is technically no public money being used to "brainwash" the children for the halo.

The above particular arguments I am sorry is the exact definition of torn shirt, open fly" argument. You are arguing 100000 murders = 1 murder and creating an absurd equal-equal argument, where even the slightest black mark on a big cloth = big black cloth itself.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 15 Nov 2011 04:09

^^^
good point. the point of having "halos" for PVNR and ABV on BRF is b/c at least here we hope that we can encourage the masses to look beyond the Nehru Gandhi dynasty and realize that this nation has produced many great leaders. no need to be defensive about it. we should do everything we can to spread awareness beyond the Nehru-Gandhi family....

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Nov 2011 04:14

JEM - this is the first part to your concerns about "rhetroical questions". Two more parts to follow, and then I would request you to see any parallels you can find.

When Shyama Prasad Mukherjee urged Nehruji on 18/10/1946 to intervene at Noakhali, explaining that the police was not helping the victims, his demand was rejected on the basis that law and order was a state subject. Note that Gandhiji went to Noakhali only on 7th of November. He first visited Bihar from Calcutta where he had arrived to go to Noakhali - but decided that it was more important to protect "Muslims" of Bihar. The riots [one sided onlee] in Noakhali had started on 10th October.

The Bengal government tried to suppress the news of Noakhali jihad and we can cite the correspondence from and by the Brits about the need to control the flow of information about the reality of Noakhali and other areas in the east. On 29/10/1946, major newspapers announced that on learning the atrocities in Noakhali, Hindus and Sikhs in Bihar retaliated and started paying back the Muslims.

Nehruji visited Bihar with Liaqat Ali and in a speech said,

"Some people believe they are taking revenge for atrocities in East Bengal. It was bad enough. Culprits must be punished immediately. The government had to follow such a course by firing machine guns and bombing the people. No government could tolerate such lawlessness. ” [Amrita Bazar Patrika : 05-11-1946]

Note that on the case of Noakhali - just 25 days before, the "centre" could not intervene. In fact, there was quite a bit of concern from both Gandhiji and Nehruji about the suspect role of Congressmen in Bihar and possible complicity of the state admin in violence on "Muslims". Similar concerns had been noted and experienced by British officials as well as CWC for Bengal. But I cannot find a single reference about Nehru ji - who in September had become the head of the interim gov at the centre - moving in any way, or taking any initiative to impose "formal" counter-violence - under central pressure on a supposedly reluctant state-admin to comply - where it was a case of Noakhali.

http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/ar ... dmag16.htm
The following is described for early November:

Among the other Muslim settlements and villages that were scared by this communal violence, Nager Nausa was one. The village was attacked by a large mob of Hindus and it remained under siege for a few days — largely because the Muslims there put up resistance by firing the few guns they possessed and by throwing bricks from the roofs of their houses, which had been collected in view of the imminent mob attack as a precautionary measure. No police personals of the nearby police station came to the rescue of the beleaguered village.

The stage had been reached when the ammunition of the Muslims had run out and they were about to be slaughtered by the attackers. Luckily, a party consisting of Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, accompanied by soldiers of the Frontier Force Regiment happened to pass through the area. They stopped near the attackers. Nehru descended from his official jeep and ordered the mob to disperse. When the mob did not pay heed to his command, he ordered the solders to fire on the mob. As a result of the firing, more than a dozen Hindu attackers fell dead, and fear-stricken, the mob dispersed.

At the time, Nehru was the prime minister of the newly-formed interim government of India and Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, representing All India Muslim League in the coalition interim government, was the minister of communication. They had rushed to Bihar from Delhi on hearing the news of the carnage. Though Nagar Nausa was saved by the timely intervention of Nehru, he earned the outrage of the Hindus of Bihari. Later on, when Nehru went to address the students of the Patna University as the prime minister of the interim government of India, the outraged Hindu students expressed their anger by rude hooting and by presenting him a garland of old shoes.

.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Nov 2011 04:15

Stan ji,
its futile to ask me the question as to why I have or have not put any halo around anyone's head. I have not done it - simply ever.

Don't see where I have become "victimist" personally. "One on one" with "nature"? "gusti" - are you sure about your linguistics? if you mean wrestling - it is called "kusti", with a soft "t". "gusti" can have quite offending contexts in Hindi depending on your level of slang.

A lot has been attached to JLN personally as his sole credit without analysis of any other potential claims of other factors which might have been responsible for events or outcomes which is solely credited to him. So it becomes quite natural to ask for his unique contributions.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 15 Nov 2011 05:01

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?

In Amrtisar ,Chacha Nehru while insepcting a refugee camp slapped an elderly Sikh gentleman who has accidently touched IG's shoulder. How dared he!! was Chacha's outburst. The gentleman simply reminded him about his advise to Punjabi Hindu and Sikhs of West Punjab to not to migrate and stick around no matter if they loose life, Izzat, Children and Makkan. JLN could not follow his own advise which he gave freely to the victims of 47 Qattleaam.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Nov 2011 05:08

Prem bhai,
we miss you!

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 15 Nov 2011 05:13

Prem wrote:
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?

In Amrtisar ,Chacha Nehru while insepcting a refugee camp slapped an elderly Sikh gentleman who has accidently touched IG's shoulder. How dared he!! was Chacha's outburst. The gentleman simply reminded him about his advise to Punjabi Hindu and Sikhs of West Punjab to not to migrate and stick around no matter if they loose life, Izzat, Children and Makkan. JLN could not follow his own advise which he gave freely to the victims of 47 Qattleaam.

Seems to have been a habit of Chacha:

There was a thunderous applause as Pandit Nehru came up on the rostrum, greeted the people with folded hands, and was formally introduce,d by a local Congress leader. But the next thing I saw made me rub my eyes. The great man had become red in the face, turned to his left, and planted a slap smack on the face of the same leader who was standing near the mike. The mike had failed. Pandit Nehru was gesticulating and shouting at the top of his voice as if something terrible had happened. Meanwhile the mike started functioning again so that he could be heard all over the place. He was saying: "Dilli ki Congress ke karkun kamine hain, razil hain, namaqul hain. Maine kyatti bar inse kaha hai ke intizam nahin kar sakte to mujhe mat bulaya karo, par ye sunte hi nahin (the leaders of the Congress in Delhi are lowbred, mean, and mindless people. I have told them time and again not to invite me if they cannot make proper arrangements. But they pay no heed)." There was pin drop silence for a moment The next moment there was another thunderous applause. The Gandhi capped man sitting next to me offered comment "Panditji is famous for his temper. And people like him all the more that way." I turned towards the rostrum. The face of Congress leader who had been slapped was bathed in smiles as if he had won some coveted prize.

This was a new experience for me. I had attended many public meetings in my village, at my district headquarters, and in Delhi. I had never witnessed such wild behaviour on a public platform. Of course, those other speakers were not so big as this one. Was it the way the big ones behaved? I wondered. I found it difficult to admire a man who had not only shouted at but also slapped someone who was placed lower than him in life, and who was in no position to hit back. And that too for no fault of the victim. Even as a young boy, I had nothing but contempt for bullies.

The speech which followed was far more disappointing. I do not remember the subject. It must have been about the current political scene. I understood no politics at that time beyond the call that the British must go. All I can recall now is the language which Pandit Nehru was speaking. It was neither Hindi, nor Urdu. Most of his sentences were far from being straight in terms of grammar or syntax. Occasionally, he was fumbling for words. I thought he was a very poor speaker. I had heard many others who, though not so well known, were far better and more coherent. I would not have noticed his language if I had not known that he belonged to a province which was famous for both Hindi and Urdu in proper form.

There were several other public meetings in Delhi addressed by Pandit Nehru after this first one which I had attended. But I did not care for them. His next performance I saw was in 1942. Talks with the Cripps Mission had failed a few days earlier. I wanted to know what the Congress intended to do next vis a vis the war which Hitler was waging against the Soviet Union. I was a post graduate student by now, full of sympathy for the cause which my professor of political science had presented as that of human freedom and progress. I was convinced that Hitler was a wild beast who had to be hunted down at any cost.

The venue of the meeting was the same old Gandhi Grounds. But the crowd was much bigger than I had ever seen in a public meeting. I took my stand near the gate which opens towards the Fountain. I did not want to be caught in the melee at the end of the meeting. Little did I know that I was going to witness a scene which would turn me away from Pandit Nehru for all time to come.

The great man was profusely garlanded as soon as he appeared on the rostrum. He repeated his greetings to the people with folded hands. But as he moved towards the mike, there was some commotion at one corner of the gathering. Someone told me that workers in one of the cotton mills in Delhi had gone on strike, and were seeking Pandit Nehru's support for their demands. I thought the workers were being unseemly. They had chosen a wrong time and a wrong place for presenting their case. The nation was in the midst of a crisis . This was no occasion to pester a national leader with petty local problems. I also gathered that the Communists were at the back of the commotion. To hell with the Communists, I said.

But as I turned towards the rostrum again, what I saw was far more unseemly. Pandit Nehru was trying to get free of the grip in which he was being held by several Congress leaders who had thrown their hands round his arms and waist. He was being prevented from jumping down, and running towards the far corner in which the commotion had arisen. He seemed to be unaware of the crowd sitting inbetween. One moment he was moving forward, and the next moment he was being pulled back. And all the time, he was shouting at the top of his voice. The mike reported him as saying, "Dekhna chahta hun in kaminon ko main. Bata dena chahta hun inko ke main kon hun. Inki ye gandi harkaten main qatai bardasht nahin kar sakta (I want to have a look at these lowbred people. I want to tell them who I am. I cannot tolerate this dirty behaviour on their part)." The commotion died down. The Congress leaders released their hold on him. Suddenly, he straightened up as if he was going to get out of his boots. He stretched his right hand, full and upwards, and shouted, "Main ek shandar admi hun (I am a man of some stature)." The crowd was clapping wildly, and continuously.

His speech that day was totally incoherent. It seemed as if he was talking to himself rather than addressing a rally. He kept on withdrawing in the next sentence what he had said in an earlier one. One moment he was denouncing the British as "a stone sitting on our breast". Next moment he was bubbling with sympathy for the cause of freedom and progress being defended by the Soviet Union. He was all for a fight to the finish so far as British imperialism was concerned. But at the same time he warned the people against coming in the way of the war effort. It was difficult to make out as to where he stood. I will not comment on the language he was speaking. I found it as shabby as on the earlier occasion.

Much worse came after the meeting dispersed. He descended from the rostrum and started moving towards the gate where I was standing. Congress volunteers had formed a cordon round him. But as the people rushed forward and tried to touch his feet, he pushed away the volunteers and started looking after himself. He was slapping with both his hands and kicking with both his feet the people who came near him. He was wearing full boots. Some of his fans must have been badly hurt. I thought he had no business to treat his people in this cruel manner. After all, they were only trying to show their devotion to him in the only way they had learnt from their tradition...

I happened to be in Delhi towards the end of 1947 or in early 1948, and went to see my journalist friend from America. As I have mentioned, he had left Calcutta for Delhi soon after India became free. As I sat down with him in the Coffee House, he said, " Sita, who does this man think.he is? Almighty God?" I asked him, " Who? What has happened?" He told me the story of some Sadhus who had sat down on an indefinite fast near Pandit Nehru's residence in New Delhi, and were seeking an assurance from him that cow slaughter would be stopped now that the beef eating British had departed. My friend said, "I had gone there to take some pictures, and gather a report. American readers love such stories from India. But what I saw was a horror for me. As I was talking to one of the Sadus who knew some English, this man rushed out of his house accompanied by his sister, Mrs. Pandit. Both of them were shouting something in Hindi. The poor Sadus were taken by surprise, and stood up. This man slapped the Sadu who had moved forward with folded hands. His sister did the same. They were saying something which sounded pretty harsh. Then both of them turned back, and disappeared as fast as they had come. The Sadus did not utter so much as a word in protest, not even after the duo had left. They had taken it all as if it was the normal thing." I observed, "But in the case of Pandit Nehru, it is the normal thing. He has been slapping and kicking people all his life." He concluded, "I do not know the norm in your country. In my country, if the President so much as shouts on a citizen, he will have to go. We take it from no ********, no matter how big he happens to be." I kept quiet.
http://voiceofdharma.com/books/hibh/ch9.htm

But all this bravado seems to have been reserved for Hindus-Sikhs only, it disappeared before Jinnah and the Muslims.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Nov 2011 05:27

JEM part two : [an old post of mine]

The spoils of partition: Bengal and India, 1947-1967, Joya Chatterji, Cambridge University Press.
p 129.

Nehru himself remained convinced that conditions in East bengal did not constitute a grave and permanaent danger to its Hindu minorities. He regarded their flight westwards as the product of largely imaginary fears and baseless rumours, not the consequence of palpable threats to Hindu life, limb and property. Long after the exodus from the east had begun, Nehru continued to delude himself that it could be halted, even reversed, provided government in Dacca could somehow be persuaded to deploy 'psychological-measures' and restore confidence among the Hindu minorities who were leaving in droves.

The reference is here to extensive second wave of progroms of Hindus in then East Pakistan started in late 1948 and continuing well into 1954. Apparently the excuse was the IA march on Nizam.

[The ref is to the infamous letter justifying discriminatory attitudes against "Bengali refugees" as that while 'there was something elemental' about the situation in West Pakistan, "where practically all Hindus and Sikhs have been driven out", whereas in the East it was more gradual, and many Hindus had been able to remain (Jawaharlal Nehru to B C Roy, 2 December 1949, cited in Saroj Chakrabarti, With Dr B C Roy, p 143) ]

Further :

"I have been quite certain, right from the beginning that everything should be done to prevent the Hindus in East Bengal from migrating to West Bengal. If that happened on a mass scale it would be a disaster of the first magnitude. Running away is never a solution to a problem. To the last I would try to check migration even if there is war"

[Same book as above - p 109]

He did sign the Nehru-Liaqat pact in 1950 to prevent any further exchange of populations. At this stage without having mechanism for enforcing compliance on Pak part - it simply meant that Bengal and centre was handicapped severely to help the refugees in continued intensifying rioting while all government machinery was put to protecting counterpart Muslim property and life within India.

Compare this with the following from JLN on December 20, 1947 about Kashmir :

"Are we to allow Pakistan to continue to train new armies for invasion and to allow its territory to be used as a base for these attacks? The obvious course of action is to strike at these concentrations and lines of communications in Pakistan territory. From a military point of view this would be the most effective step. We have refrained from taking it because of political considerations. We shall have to reconsider this position because a continuation of the present situation is intolerable. If Pakistan is not prepared to help in putting an end to this war or even to try to withdraw these invaders then we should help ourselves, even by crossing some part of Pakistan territory and hitting at their concentrations. This involves a risk of war with Pakistan. We wish to avoid war, but it is merely deluding ourselves to imagine that we are avoiding war so long as the present operations are continuing on either side."

Compare this with Chittagong : http://www.angelfire.com/ab/jumma/bground/blunder.html The author was a career diplomat in IFS of Chakma descent.

The Radcliffe Commission submitted its Report on the 9th of August 1947. At the Staff Meeting on August 12, there was a virtual explosion and V.P. Menon, who was a confidant of Sardar Ballav Bhai Patel, reacted most violently when it came to be known that the Chittagong Hill Tracts was going to be given to Pakistan. The following day, on August 13th, the All India Congress Committee issued a declaration alleging that the award "lacked all sense of justice, equity and propriety" and, therefore, it was "ineffective, infurctuous and incapable of execution in international consciousness". Sardar Patel wrote an angry letter to Mountbatten expressing his indignation, calling the Radcliffe award "monstrous and a blatant breach of the terms of reference". He warned that "I am urging the tribesmen to resist amalgamation with Pakistan by force, if necessary". He was indeed a great patriot and a staunch nationalist.

Originally, the award of the Boundary Commission was to be made public on the 13th of August. But Mountbatten was reluctant to spill the beans. According to Philip Zeigler, the author of Mountbatten's official biography, the case of the Chittagong Hill Tracts was uppermost in Mountbatten's mind. "He (Mountbatten) foresaw an Independence Day marred by rancour, Nehru boycotting the ceremonies, India born in an atmosphere not of euphoria but of angry resentment. So Mountbatten decided to announce the award only on the 16th of August when the celebrations were over. As Zeigler writes, "India's indignation at the award of the Chittagong Hill Tracts to Pakistan may have been a factor in making up Mountbatten's mind to keep the reports to himself till after independence".

Mountbatten was himself surprised by the ferocity of Sardar Patel's reaction to the issue. In his memoirs he wrote: "The one man I had regarded as a real statesman with both his feet firmly on the ground, and a man of honour whose word was his bond, had turned out to be as hysterical as the rest. Candidly I was amazed that such a terrific crisis should have blown up over so small a matter. However, I have been long enough in India to realise that major crises are by no means confined to big matters." It may have been a small matter for Mountbatten in that exulted position as the Viceroy of India but what about the poor people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts? When wanton children throw stones at the frogs in sport, the frogs do not die in sport, they die in earnest. As Leonard Mosley in his book The Last Days of the British Raj puts it succinctly: "This is a matter for Mountbatten's conscience.

The award of the Chittagong Hill Tracts to Pakistan was so unexpected that even Justice Mohammad Munir, a Muslim member of the Boundary Commission. said: "I was certain from the start that the Chittagong Hill Tracts would be awarded to India." Obviously, it was against all principles of justice, equity and fair play.

Mr Jaipal Singh, who was member of the Sub-Committee of the Constituent Assembly of India dealing with the Excluded Areas, recorded a minute of dissent in which he wrote: "The Chittagong Hill Tracts must be claimed back to India". Soon afterwards, in a public speech in Calcutta, Nehru himself said that gross injustice had been done in regard to the Chittagong Hill Tracts. He also declared that the matter would be taken up with Pakistan. But nothing was done.

With a deep sigh full of pathos Mohit Chakma lamented, "There was no one to listen to our appeal or champion our cause. We sent a delegation of our leaders to New Delhi to plead our cause. They were received by Sardar Patel who gave a sympathetic hearing and advised them to resist with all their might. He did not hesitate to tell the members of the delegation, 'At the moment my hands are too full with Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh. Once these problems are solved, I assure you categorically that I will come to your rescue.' It was most unfortunate for the Chakmas that he did not live long enough. With the death of the indomitable Sardar on 15th December, 1950 all our hopes were dashed to the ground.

Something else turns out from the minutes of the meeting where JLN spoke up about Chittagong: http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpregion ... index.html [ The Awards of the Boundary Commissions :Minutes of a meeting held at Government House, New Delhi at 5 p.m. on Saturday, 16th August.

Present :Viscount Mountbatten of Burma - Governor-General, India. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru - Prime Minister, India. Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan - Prime Minister, Pakistan. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel - Home Minister, India. Mr. Fazlur Rahman - Minister of the Interior, Pakistan. Sardar Baldev Singh - Defence Minister, India. Mr. Mohammed Ali - Cabinet Secretary, Pakistan. Rao Bahadur V.P. Menon - Secretary of the States Department, India. Lt. Col. V.F. Erakine-Crum - Conference Secretary to the Governor-General of India.

1. The meeting considered the awards of the Boundary Commissions, copies of which had been given to the Ministers after the Joint Defence Council meeting that morning.]

Bengal

2. Pandit Nehru said that he had never considered that the allocation of the Chittagong Hill Tracts to East Bengal was possible under the terms of reference of the Boundary Commission. Eminent lawyers had confirmed this point of view. These Tracts were an excluded area, and were not represented in the Bengal Council. He and his colleagues had given assurances to petty chiefs from the Chittagong Hill Tracts who had come to see them, that there was no question of the territory being included in Pakistan. The population of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, though small (approximately ¼ million) was 97% Buddhist and Hindu. There was not the least doubt that the people themselves would prefer to form part of India. On religious and cultural grounds, the Chittagong Hill Tracts should form part of India. Sir Cyril Radcliffe had had no business to touch them.

[...]]
Punjab

12. Pandit Nehru said that he considered that the award of the Boundary Commission in the Punjab was likely to have a bad effect among the Sikhs, who presented a particularly difficult problem.

13. Sardar Baldev Singh also considered that the reaction to the award would be very unfavourable on the Sikh mind.

[...]

18. Pandit Nehru suggested that he and Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan should also visit Lahore and Amritsar the following day, and this was agreed.

19. Pandit Nehru said that he had received particularly alarming reports from Lahore, where many hundreds of Sikhs and Hindus were gathered together in relief camps without proper protection and without rations. Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan undertook to get in touch with the Prime Minister of West Punjab and ask him to ensure that full measures were taken for the protection of refugees. He further suggested that the Punjab Boundary Force should be asked to assist in the evacuation of refugees.

The Publication of the Awards

[...]
22. Pandit Nehru finally emphasized that he and his colleagues felt themselves to be in a moral impasse about the Chittagong Hill Tracts, because, throughout the previous two or three months, they had given countless assurances to the representatives of that territory that it could not be included in Pakistan. Furthermore, this action had been taken after consultation with lawyers.

23. It was agreed that the Governor-General should issue the awards in the form of a Gazette Extraordinary the following day, and that copies of the awards should be sent immediately to the Governors of East and West Bengal and East and West Punjab.

24. It was further agreed that a draft communiqué handed round at the meeting should be issued that night, subject to certain amendments which were made. Visit of Minister of one dominion to the other dominion.

Interesting parts have been emboldened by me. Note the discrepancy in "reassurance" knowing the consequences of not keeping them. This is after the experiences of 1946.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 15 Nov 2011 05:49

Stan_Savljevic wrote:What have been the unique contributions of anyone in the post-47 annals of Indian history? Can you name a few, or even one for that matter?

They haven't created die-nasties

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Nov 2011 05:50

Stan_Savljevic wrote:You still have nt explained why a halo has to be put on either Vajpayee or Narasimha Rao or anyone for that matter? In fact, without any data points in that direction, your whole argument/whine profile seems to be based on why is Nehru getting the limelite when Vajpayee is not? To bring down that halo that Nehru has which in itself is a reflection of the great shining impressionable India, your whole job is to piss on him and what all he did. Well, there is a simpler route, dear friend, stop pissing. To achieve the opposite effect of a halo, you dont have to make effort to de-halo that, but you can ignore things that have a halo. I am sure you have seen nuff logic in whatever field you are to understand that advise.

As regards gusti, it is one of your claims in some random dhaaga that you were one-on-one with nature. If it offends your sensibilities and makes you explore your often visible victimist mindset, ah I am not so sorry at all, take all the offense you have to take.

PS: And see, I wrote a whole post without a quotation mark in random places, you should thank all the 33 crore gods for that small mercy.

Stan ji,
I missed some juicy details on first reading :
I have not attacked you personally for your tastes, or comments. You revel in offending people - that is fine. That perhaps speaks of a deeper inferiority complex than is seen rarely outside psychiatric wards. Maybe you should explore your own deep sensibilities as to what makes you a Don Quxotian aggressor who need to try and humiliate individual posters.

What is offensive is your ordering me to thank all the 33 crore gods for that small mercy. Who the emperor are you to define my religion? or what my personal belief about god/gods should be? You can diss religion anyway you want - but do not try this on individual assumed beliefs. There are disputes about 33 crore gods - and there is one existing pointer to this being an incorrect translation. If you really do not know about the religion of others - why make such laughable attempts? Or maybe that is what rankles you - a particular religion of faith system which you cannot diss that openly? By the way - so you are a divine mercy on me - is it? Don't know which camp of victimist zealotry you had your training from!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Nov 2011 08:17

Since "victimist" is taken in standard usage as incorrect spelling or usage : I looked at who uses the expression most. Interestingly this came up :

Alyson M. Cole.
The Cult of True Victimhood: From the War on Welfare to the War on Terror.
Stanford University Press, 2006, 256 pp.

Since the 1990s, academics, journalists, and public intellectuals have debated the prominent role of "victim claims" in U.S. society. According to a growing number of voices, the inflation of these claims is a pathological trend that prevents citizens and policy-makers alike from sorting out genuine from false victimization. In The Cult of True Victimhood, political theorist Alyson M. Cole explores what she depicts as a coherent ideological and political campaign against victims, which is related to the contemporary backlash against affirmative action, multiculturalism, and the welfare state. According to Cole, the "anti-victim discourse shapes victim talk by foregrounding and perpetuating particular and rather new understandings of victims, victimization, and victimhood. It is this campaign that associates victimization with weakness, passivity, dependency, and effeminacy. Conversely, it also depicts victims as manipulative, aggressive, and even criminal, at times, as actual or potential victimizers, a danger to themselves and society" (p. 3). Because this anti-victim discourse has become ever present in U.S. society, Cole argues, many progressives have attempted to disengage from so-called "victim politics." As a result, the idea of "victim" is increasingly becoming taboo in U.S. society, which helps explain the growing popularity of terms like "hero" and "survivor."

Attacking groups that depict themselves as victims of the existing social order, anti-victimists compare this army of supposedly inauthentic victims to the limited number of helpless and innocent "true victims." Not surprisingly, these "true victims" frequently include unborn foetuses and "those individuals who have been ostracized, censored, and published in other ways by political correctness, affirmative action, hate speech codes, and similar manifestations of injurious victim politics" (p. 6). This politically-motivated and conservative narrowing of the concept of "victim" is what Cole calls "the cult of true victimhood."

One key aspect of the contemporary U.S. anti-victimist discourse is that it is grounded in a purely individualistic and moralistic vision of social order. From this perspective, anti-victimism is an attempt to reduce most group-based political demands to individualized pathologies stemming from personal moral and psychological flaws. For Cole, this inversion of the feminist motto "the personal is political" (i.e., "the political is personal") is a serious challenge to genuine progressive politics, which rejects pure individualism in order to foster collective action aimed at fighting structural inequalities. From this perspective, anti-victimism is not only an attack against identity politics and the welfare state but an attempt to annihilate progressive politics altogether. Although Cole does not explicitly refer to C. Wright Mills's concept of "sociological imagination," one could depict anti-victimism as an attack against any type of sociological perspective, as many anti-victimists seem to share Margaret Thatcher's idea that "there is no such thing as society." This is perhaps why, when assessing victimization claims, anti-victimists appraise the character of the alleged victims instead of looking at the broad social and economic factors that may legitimize such claims (p. 35). Promoting personal responsibility, anti-victimists criticize most alleged victims for blaming others for their personal flaws rather than "assuming full responsibility for their individual lives." This is exactly the discourse that helps U.S. conservatives discredit affirmative action and the welfare state, for example (p. 45).

Thus anti-victmism can be a way of suppressing politically unwanted dissent. Learnt a new thing today!

So looking back on material that I have posted that could come under the purview of "victimist" - from the minimal characterization that I can think of - of talking of "victims", then I have indeed posted about possible victims of Islamists and a particular brand of Christian missionaries in the past. Posted rarely about Christian atrocities and much more on Islamist ones. So I guess that is the real reason of khujli - as to why I have posted about the zealots from these two creeds.

In that case, perhaps, people should judge for themselves. More of "victimism" then :
http://noakhali1946.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... ficed.html
http://bengalvoice.blogspot.com/

Prem bhai - and Surasena ji - request to do the honours for Punjab if you would like to!

Giving reign to analyzing the so-called anti-victimist position on this : why is this immense urge to suppress the victimist especially when Punjab and Bengal and Nehruji is concerned? Is it because victimists are exposing a consistent pattern of

(a) Islamism and Islamists are declared to be peaceful and no future danger by a section of non-Muslims eager to get their support for political or other purposes.
(b) Islamists use this attitude to gain strength and whenever there is opportunity to do so based on numerical superiority violence is unleashed in well-thought out tactical way to clear land and gain geopolitical advantages or demographically
(c) A section of both Muslim and non-Muslim portions/leaders/key admin powers collaborate in this violence and extend protection from retaliation and retribution on Muslims
(d) After Islamists have achieved their interim targets there is a concerted attempt to whitewash and erase the historical record of the pattern only away from the non-Muslim, while Islamist techniques remain alive through institutional and textual continuity
(e) with records of prior patterns of behaviour delegitimized, the algorithm can be restarted at (a).

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 15 Nov 2011 09:10

Bsir ji,
Dont try to get me banned !!

IMHO, Chacha had phobia about "revolutionary" Bengali and "emotionally charged" Punjabi. He knew that to get annointed as the Presiding Deity of Pseudo Secularism in India will always be under threat from Bose as the symbol of revolutionary/ new ideas ( Bose scared him) and the Sword carrying Khalsa becoming the Indian norm in Paying back with Interest attitude. I think he wanted 400% control of Independent India and disliked people, communities which he thought could expose his weaknesses. May be he wanted India to be made in his own image. His eagerness to appoint a Mullah as incharge of education/social engineering in Independent India reflect his long term thinking and now the project is failing and people fear the current GOI making new laws under the influence of DIE, EJ and other alien power brokers will do untold damage to the ancient civilizational India. For them every one is stakeholder in India except the Indics. I dont know why Congress culture has so much hatred for the soul sons of soil and so much love for the adopted others. Chacha built instituions to mould the counttry in his own image are now the original cause of constant tention,tussle and terrorism in India.Where do we go from here, bakc to 47?
Please do send me the soft copy of your book. Mullah here has my co-ordinants.

member_19686 · Post by **member_19686** » 15 Nov 2011 09:44

bji

I can't find the source for Nehru's antics in the Panjab now, it seems to have gone defunct but here is something expanding on what you posted about Bengal:

Nehru's Neglect Of Hindus
Dec 2006

The great Calcutta killing took place in August 1946. This carnage was followed by riots in East Bengal and were especially centred around Noakhali, a port in the Bay of Bengal and Tippera (now in Tripura). The rioting was so prolonged and intense that it set off an exodus of Hindus who proceeded towards Calcutta. Even a tour by Gandhi to reassure the affected families made little difference. Partition took place in the middle of August a year later, and the exodus almost became a flood. This compelled the central government at Delhi to talk to their Pakistani counterparts. At the end of Inter-Dominion Conference in 1948, an Indo-Pak agreement was signed in the hope of reassuring the minorities.

The 'Marginal Men' by Prafulla K. Chakrabarti, Naya Udyog, Kolkata, 1999, is relevent in this context. In it is quoted the correspondence between Jawaharlal Nehru and West Bengal Chief Minister Dr. B.C. Roy. Two of Nehru's letters are quoted.

On 16 August 1948 Nehru wrote:
I have your letter of August 4th about the influx from East Bengal. I realise your difficulties and naturally we should do what we can to help you. But as I told you long ago there is no reasonable solution of the problem if there is a large influx from East Bengal. That is why I have been terribly anxious throughout to prevent this, whatever might happen. I still think that every effort should be made to prevent it. I think that it was a very wrong thing for some of the Hindu leaders of East Bengal to come to West Bengal.

On 22 August Nehru wrote:
I have been quite certain right from the beginning that everything should be done to prevent Hindus in East Bengal from migrating to West Bengal. If that happened on a mass scale it would be a disaster of the first magnitude. Running away is never a solution to a problem. I think the Hindu leaders of East Bengal who have come away have done no service to their people. If, as you suggest, things have gone too far already, then naturally we shall all do what we can, but I shudder at the prospect and at the magnitude of the human misery that will come in its train. to the last I shall try to check migration even if there is war.

On 1 April 1950, Dr, Syama Prasad Mookerjee resigned from the Jawaharlal Nehru ministry as an angry protest against the Indian government's appeasement policy towards Pakistan. In a cabinet meeting earlier that afternoon, this is what Dr, Mookerjee said, as quoted in the book called Soundings In Modern South Asian History, edited by D.A. Low, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1968:

When Muslims in Kashmir were attacked, you sent Indian armed forces and spent crores of rupees. What do you care for us Bengali Hindus? What do you care for the criminal assaults on our women? Suddenly Panditji stood up and began to advance towards Syama Prasad. That tiger of Bengal also raised his hand and stepped forward. For a moment it looked as if the Cabinet meeting would become a battle field. But I pacified Syama Prasad. When things came to such a pass, Patel left the meeting. A couple of other ministers also left. I said to Panditji: "Half the Cabinet has gone away. I think the meeting should be adjourned". Panditji calmed down and the meeting was adjourned.

The immediate cause of Dr. Mookerjee's anger was the exodus of Hindu refugees from East Pakistan which had begun again in early 1950. According to the figures later given to Parliament by Jawaharlal Nehru, between 7 February and 8 April 1950, about 9 lakh Hindus crossed into India.

From the beginning of partition, some four million Hindus had migrated from East Pakistan, as described by Jawaharlal Nehru himself on the floor of Parliament on 7 August 1950.

The two prime ministers met in Delhi at the end of which they signed what has come to be known as the Nehru-Liaquat agreement. Syama Prasad Mookerjee saw the riots in East Pakistan as part of a deliberate and cold blooded plan to exterminate or expel the minorities from East Pakistan. It is this conviction which made Mookerjee suggest an exchange of populations. As we have seen, Nehru rejected this suggestion out of hand. As quoted in his Selected Speeches referred to earlier, he went on to explain:

An exchange of population is something which we have opposed all along. It is something which I consider not only undesirable but also not feasible. It is a question of arithmetic, apart from anything else. If we wanted an exchange of population between East and West Bengal and if we did it with the complete cooperation of both the governments on expert level and with every facility given, it is calculated that it would take five and a half years and that, if no untoward event happened. Of course, many untoward events will happen in the meantime and, of course, there will be no such magnificent cooperation between the two governments either! All kinds of upheavals will take place during that period, so that one cannot tnink of this solution in terms of reality.

Then again, where do we draw the line? The present position is that, so far as the Hindu population of East Bengal is concerned, one might say, generally speaking, that the entire population is full of fear and apprehension about the future and, given the opportunity, would like to come away from East Bengal. That is only their present feeling. I do not know, if they will actually come, when an opportunity is given. Perhaps, later some people will stick to their lands and other things. That will depend on the developing situation and on whether they have security or not.

To a Hindu, the arguments advanced by Jawaharlal Nehru, in or outside Parliament, were not convicting. They appeared contrived merely to escape having to take a firm stand against Pakistan. A Prime Minister, strong enough to lead such a large country as India, should have said: "Janab Liaquat, either you stop sending out Hindus or we would send a commensurate number of Muslims across your borders. If you indulge in ethnic cleansing, we shall be left with no choice. In any case, it was your party called the Muslim League led by Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah which had repeatedly insisted that there should be an exchange of population. On the other hand, we were generous enough not to press for uprooting people who had lived where they did for generations. You have answered our generosities with treachery. Now face the consequences."

No such statement or voice was heard from Prime Minister Nehru. Even in 1950, it was obvious that he was no visionary. His colleagues of the stature of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Dr. N.V. Gadgil had protested against Nehru's appeasement, and sure enough as times unfolded, Nehru was proved wrong, again and again. Is it therefore any surprise that any number of Indians are prepared to blame Nehru for having mismanaged the kashmir issue with Pakistan? But very few realise that he was also the architect of a worse disease, namely, communalism which afflicted Indian polity in a number of ways with different depths.

http://www.janasangh.com/jsart.aspx?stid=177

Also interesting is:

Having been uprooted from my home in Lahore, Pakistan, I had been pondering a lot on what the nation and I had gone through. My mind was particularly exercised by the continued stay in India of the leaders of the Muslim League who had brought about Partition and had worked for the establishment of Pakistan. This made me react to the observations made by the Prime Minister and provoked a dialogue.

The Dialogue:

Y. KRISHAN (Y.K.) Probationer : Well sir, those who have brought about Partition have been left behind in the partitioned India. The Muslim League had declared that the Hindus and Muslims were two nations and had asked for partition because they feared that the Muslims, being a minority, would suffer oppression and atrocities at the hands of the Hindu majority. Pakistan was to be their homeland where they could live in freedom from tne tyranny of the non-Muslim majority. But lo! and behold! the vast majority of the Muslims of U.P., Bihar, Central Provinces, Bombay, etc. remained behind in India and did not migrate to the homeland (Pakistan) created for them.

P.M.: We never accepted the two-nation theory though we were driven to accept Partition to avoid bloodshed and to achieve independence. We are not a communal State. The Muslims, who have decided to stay in India, are as much honourable citizens of the country as the members of the majority community. They cannot be victimised in the riew situation for their actions and conduct before and at the time of Partition.
We connot and must not live in the past.

Y.K.: True sir, but the immense suffering the people have undergone and the problems the country is facing are the direct result of the past, of the two-nation theory. In fact, Partition has solved no problems; only it has created new ones.

P.M. : You are too young to understand.
The overwhelming majority of the Indian Muslims are politically backward and have been misled by the pernicious and poisonous propaganda of the Muslim League. So it will be wrong to treat the vast majority of Indian Muslims as being responsible for the ills of our country.

Y.K.: True sir, the vast majority has been misled by the two-nation theory. But this does not absolve the Muslim League leadership: they are the authors* of Partition. And yet, the majority of this leadership has also stayed back in India. The Muslims of Pakistan, West Punjab, N.W.F.P.,Sind and Baluchistan, as such, never wanted or asked for Pakistan. In fact, they did not need to.

There was a pause and silence for a couple of, minutes.

Y.K.: The Raja of Mahamudabad, Begum Aizaz Rasul, Raja of Pirpur, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, etc. from U.P., Syed Hossain Imam from Bihar, M. Mohd. Ismail from Madras, etc., to name a few of the host of Muslim League leaders, have stayed back in India though they had actively worked for the creation of Pakistan as the homeland for the Indian Muslims. There is not an iota of justification for such leaders being allowed to stay in India after having got the country partitioned on the basis of the two-nation theory. They ought to have gone to the homeland they asked for and obtained.

There was again a pause.

P.M. Nehru's face was flushed. After a brief silence, he resumed.

P.M. : We cannot abandon the nationalist Muslims who had fought and sacrificed for India's Independence.

Y.K. : But the Congress has already abandoned the true nationalist Muslims, the Khudai Khidmatgars led by the Frontier Gandhi.

P.M. : This was a most painful decision forced on us by the geo-political realities.

Y.K. : I am not sure of the loyalty of the so-called nationalist Muslims after the creation of Pakistan, considering the speeches, ('mischievous and rabble rousing) of the nationalist Muslim leaders (those who were opposed to Partition) like Dr. Syed Mahmud, Maulana Hafizur Rahman (of Jamiat-ul-ulema-e-Hind) etc. at the Lucknow conference of Mussalman.i.Hind'l (Dec. 1947).

P.M. : This is false, mischievous, a canard intended to defame and denigrate the nationalist Muslims who have played a glorious role in India's Independence.

Y.K. : The P.M. must be correct on this point. I have perhaps been wrongly informed. But the basic fact remains that the Muslim League leaders and workers from Western U.P.-Meerut, Moradabad, Aligarh, Saharanpur, etc. organised the riots in Rawalpindi in March, 1947 which set the Punjab ablaze. It was not the work of the local Muslims of Rawalpindi in the initial stages but of the Muslim League leaders from U.P. Is it also not shocking that the Muslim League leaders of Rampur State in U.P. should have launched a violent agitation by setting on fire several Government buildings demanding accession of the Rampur State to Pakistan?

The face of the Prime Minister turned red in anger. He started puffing at his silver cigarette-holder.

At this point I had a very strong urge to recall the advice P.M. Nehru had given to the Kashmiri Pandits in 1945 at a meeting in Sopore in the Kashmir Valley that if non-Muslims wanted to live in Kashmir, they should join the National Conference (which was overwhelmingly a Muslim party) or bid good-bye to the country (Kashmir). But sensing the mood of the Prime Minister I was sullen and kept quiet.

The Principal of the Training School M.J. Desai, I.C.S. was visibly feeling uncomfortable and edgy. As there was palpable tension in the atmosphere and Prime Minister Nehru was silent and red faced, the Principal asked for the dinner bell to be rung. This relieved the tension in all of us. We collected our plates and made a bee-line for the dining table.

http://www.janasangh.com/jsart.aspx?stid=415

He couldn't even kick out known ML'ers who asked for Partition but spewed bile about Hindus day in and day out, great "visionary" indeed.

But you have to realize bji that he was busy battling the "religulous" "neo zamidarist" Hindus to have time for these trivialities as we were informed on another thread

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 15 Nov 2011 10:21

Perhaps you have red this about Shela Masood
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column ... ar_1588433

Also, as recently as July 25th, she wrote letters to minister for environment and forests Jayanthi Natarajan, talking about illegal diamond mining in Chhatarpur. A petition against Rio Tinto, a transnational firm allegedly involved in illegal mining, had already been filed.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Nov 2011 11:36

Stan_Savljevic wrote: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?

Dear Stan; there are about 300000000000 references by DIFFERENT people on how Nehru merrily murdered democracy to suite himself, whenever he got a half chance.

I posted one by Justice Sachar, because Justice Sachar is a DARLING of the Nehru worship cult as well and hence it will be difficult for cult of Nehru to handle that.

Regarding Art. 356 usage as being overused in JP rule, I meant 77-80 onlee.

Well well, thats a bit of downhill skiing after being caught making big boo boos isnt it.

Overused in 77-79 when there are 3x the use of 356 in preceding and following 3 year period by IG? Wah Wah.

So you will not compare 77-79 with 75 or 80 and conclude that JP used 356 sparing compared to its immediate political rival but will compare with JLN 30 years ago?

Were you by any chance also on safety panel of TEPCO before Fuk-D?

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.

50s should not be compared with 70s because it is moronic to compare apples with oranges.

However let me say I accept your comparison.

For the record, I think that Janta Party govt in 77-79 period did a whole bunch of very moronic stuff, royal ones. So very unfortunately for your image building of that twit Nehru, you have successfully managed to establish -- 15 years of first Indian govt with 3 years of worst Govt that Indian has.

Congratulation. You win.

Yes JLN >> (in damage) Moraraji Desai, Charan Singh and all associated congress fossils. Kudos

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Nov 2011 11:42

As a Hindu, I found the concept of devil odious, till I read about Nehru in detail. Now I am not so sure.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 15 Nov 2011 11:57

Umm I think the issue was an attempt to prove Nehru's 'undemocratic' credentials by focusing on his usage of Art 356. What Stan has shown is that Nehru used Art 356 on 8 occassions in his 15 year 'rule'

, whereas the Janata Govt, with ABV as home minister used Art 356 on 9 occassions in one year alone (1977).

So irrespective of whether Nehru subverted democracy or not - the Art 356 usage does not prove the point. Or rather, it proves that every politician subverts democracy when he /she is in power.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 15 Nov 2011 12:18

arnab wrote:Umm I think the issue was an attempt to prove Nehru's 'undemocratic' credentials by focusing on his usage of Art 356. What Stan has shown is that Nehru used Art 356 on 8 occassions in his 15 year 'rule' , whereas the Janata Govt, with ABV as home minister used Art 356 on 9 occassions in one year alone (1977).

So irrespective of whether Nehru subverted democracy or not - the Art 356 usage does not prove the point. Or rather, it proves that every politician subverts democracy when he /she is in power.

The situation in 1977 may not have been the same as in Nehru years. Nehru due to it just being after independence had the unique advantage where everybody who fought for Independence was in the Congress and he could steamroll his policies with super majorities in parliament.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 15 Nov 2011 12:34

^^ ABV was External Affairs not Home minister iirc.

Nehru made mistakes, especially wrt external security but focusing on foibles alone is not the right way to assess. And this cross demonization of one anothers' favourites or heroes certainly is educational I suppose

.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Nov 2011 12:44

arnab wrote:Umm I think the issue was an attempt to prove Nehru's 'undemocratic' credentials by focusing on his usage of Art 356. What Stan has shown is that Nehru used Art 356 on 8 occassions in his 15 year 'rule' , whereas the Janata Govt, with ABV as home minister used Art 356 on 9 occassions in one year alone (1977).

So irrespective of whether Nehru subverted democracy or not - the Art 356 usage does not prove the point. Or rather, it proves that every politician subverts democracy when he /she is in power.

Arnab, Stan used the link I provided to tell me that JP has used 356 21 times between 1975 and 1980

Now you tell us that Atal-ji was the home minister.

Seriously, you guys outdo Sardesai's of the world -- and I am being charitable.

Jai ho.

negi · Post by **negi** » 15 Nov 2011 12:44

I think one cannot deny the fact that JLN was the most influential PM India ever had (I mean even if one goes by tenure there is not much to argue); as far as I am concerned it is the 1962 debacle which somehow prejudices my opinion about the man himself. Unfortunately it also looks like a lot of angst against the dynastic politics in the INC gets directed against JLN for obvious reasons. It is not a surprise that people who do not like JLN also do not think of MKG highly (I think it's true for me as well) although I have to concede that MKG's "Jantar' which used to be a part of every NCERT text is something I still find immensely useful to this day .

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Nov 2011 12:51

negi wrote: It is not a surprise that people who do not like JLN also do not think of MKG highly

Except me perhaps, I dont think like that.

MKG was not a god, and many charges made stick. However he was in a league far far removed from JLN. JLN was the parasite who worked of MKGs work.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 15 Nov 2011 13:09

Stan_Savljevic wrote:He is from Bihar, no questions about that.

He is one of those who did a cost-benefit calculation of the pak-e-satan project and showed clearly to the Muslims that the whole edifice is built on bunkum and will end up biting their backsides sooner than later. And he wrote that book when the brits had lodged him in jail. He was not a kandle kisser by any means, he was the Joe Frazier of his era. You should get his book for what a great first President we had. Ambedkar as Law minister, Rajendra Prasad as President, Radhakrishnan as Vice President, Sardar Patel as Home minister, GV Mavlankar as Speaker, and all scholars, erudites, and stalwarts in different dimensions. I have some special fondness for Ambedkar because of his deep erudition that set him far apart from most of the other members of the Constitution Committee. Truly, democracy set its roots because of such yeomen and women who drove India to what it is today, not because the Hindus want democrazy or Nehru planted democracy or the Army did nt intervene and other such wild hypotheses.

Well, to my way of thinking, Ambedkar was not superman who simply bent the Hindu population to his force of will; he succeeded because the Hindus didn't really mount a campaign to stop his efforts, and for the most part were supportive or at least acquiescent of provisions like putting the prohibition against untouchability and restrictive Hindu temple entry in the Constitution itself (rather than simply making it illegal) Considering the massive public backlash in many so-called advanced countries against socially liberal and progressive legal measures (vide the reaction against school integration, guaranteeing of voting rights (!) and other civil rights in the US), I find this a remarkable commentary on Hindu society, very much to its credit, inasmuch as Ambedkar's provisions undid at the stroke of a pen the social institutions and rules that were supposedly standard practice for centuries if not millennia.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 15 Nov 2011 13:22

brihaspati,

Not sure why you are making those long posts with references to Nehru's action or inaction on issues. I've read quite a bit of the stuff, and not just from the so-called "eminent" historians and their intellectual children.

As for the rhetorical questions to which I initially said you might as well answer them yourself is because the answer cannot be but "No" to all, which is why I said they were rhetorical in the first place.

We can copy-paste a ton of stuff showing what an demon Nehru was, and also a ton of stuff showing the opposite. Clearly the problem is that people seem to want to believe one totally or the other totally. But the man, like any other, was not unidimensional. No one is saying he had no character flaws (bending over backward in "chivalry" - quite literally and embarrassingly sometimes), or that he did not take wrong decisions (China).

If all the writings on him and by him does not indicate this, well, read again and read widely is all I can say. I mean, you can surely read everything and come to the conclusion that he was an unmitigated disaster for India; or that he was saviour of our civilisation; or that he was a bit of both. But there's no need to be abusive of him (or anyone else for that matter - not you brihaspati, I was referring to the original poster and others to whom I responded in the first place); Even if you are right, it does not help the case. Just makes you look like the intellectual version of Rageboy.

Hard to believe that I'm on an Indian forum having to convince people to look at all perspectives. Clearly it is not as hardwired into us as I thought.

No more from me on this subject.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 15 Nov 2011 13:45

Wow. And I thought the Nuclear dhagha was the radioactive one on this board.
----------------------------------

Nehru was a man and of a generation were people were deeply flawed due to upbringing and exposure. One must remember about Nehru that he lived so long. He lost all his contemporaries very quickly after independence. He was left all alone as a giant. People around him were overawed and Nehru's personality did not work so well with new comers. He was a God to a generation that needed a god or would have lost faith in India. We on BRF dislike Gods, esp. man made ones and love to tear him down. If my Grand Father saw some of the language used to address Nehru on this forum he would weep. It is good he can not read this. We love to hate him because he was the Father of our nation and we always have troubles with our Fathers because our agenda never aligns with theirs. Our judgements are made based on what we know in 2011 not what Nehru knew in 1952. You read the stuff written back then and it reeks of racism, bigotry, ignorance and sheer quackery. Yet despite this Nehru got so much right. Think of India back then.

- 95% illiterate.
- Power capacity 6000 MW. Yes that is correct.
- Steel production < 1 million tonnes.
- Always on the verge of starvation.
- Gandhi's weird economic ideas were still a powerful force.

Despite his flaws, all of us use a language that under his watch was chosen for India, went to educational institutions he started or staffed by his professors, educated under him, eat food that is produced under the agriculture programs started under him and drive a car using steel produced from factories built under his watch. Here is a limited list of what he did get right.

- Universal Adult Suffrage. Including women.
- Free Multi-Party Democracy. (IG hated this but could not undo Nehru.)
- Federal Policy. (IG hated this to but could not undo.)
- Relative foreign policy independence. Which we paid for when Panda attacked us.
- Secular state. (Much hated but can not undo)
- Cultural diversity. (Many hate this but can not undo)
- Free press.
- Independent Judiciary.
- Strongly resisted Gandhi type economy. Over shrill cries of betrayal.
- Appealed across caste, religious, gender, civilization and North/South lines. Even now there is no other politician like that.
- Non-Stop worker. Traveled from one end of the country to the other endlessly. Liked to talk endlessly and people loved to listen. These things we needed.
- One must remember that despite radio there was very little mass media then. Nehru worked to speak directly to every Indian he could find. I don't think there was an Indian he missed.
- Made it a point to visit every Temple, Church or Mosque he could find.
- Sharp decrease in communal violence compared to earlier times.
- Submitted to linguistic separation of states over his own vigorous objections.
- I could go on....

His number one influence can be seen from this single fact. Of all the nations created after decolonization all the way from Morocco to Japan, India still remains the only stable Multiparty Democracy. Let me stress that, India is the ONLY one.

While everyone attacks him on this rule or that , this economic policy or that, I only attack him on one..

- Failure to attack illiteracy with all the resources available.

So the question is, what did the Janata government do to end illiteracy. Anyone. Sardar Patel & Illiteracy. Anyone. What about that much praised PVNR. Diddly squat.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 15 Nov 2011 14:07

Theo_Fidel wrote:Wow. And I thought the Nuclear dhagha was the radioactive one on this board.

Theo-ji; aint it fun.

Anyway let me jump in.

Let me mark some points on which I agree with you; strongly

People around him were overawed and Nehru's personality did not work so well with new comers. He was a God to a generation that needed a god or would have lost faith in India.

Strongly agree.

If my Grand Father saw some of the language used to address Nehru on this forum he would weep.

Ditto.

However you give him a credit for a lot that were not his doing merely that he was around as head when they were done and he did not interfere in direct execution of many things. (Thank god)

However this I will agree to

- Appealed across caste, religious, gender, civilization and North/South lines. Even now there is no other politician like that.
- Non-Stop worker. Traveled from one end of the country to the other endlessly. Liked to talk endlessly and people loved to listen. These things we needed.
- One must remember that despite radio there was very little mass media then. Nehru worked to speak directly to every Indian he could find. I don't think there was an Indian he missed.

Nehru's strength were his charisma and his mass mobilization background from pre-Independence INC machinery. He was actually using INCs strength to yoke to his personal chariot, but nevertheless he got this right.

I dont think he did the ethical thing, but he certainly did the politically clever thing.

His number one influence can be seen from this single fact. Of all the nations created after decolonization all the way from Morocco to Japan, India still remains the only stable Multiparty Democracy. Let me stress that, India is the ONLY one.

I personally think its DESPITE Nehru rather than because of Nehru, but yes there is some food for thought here.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 15 Nov 2011 14:15

Sanku wrote:However you give him a credit for a lot that were not his doing merely that he was around as head when they were done and he did not interfere in direct execution of many things.

I don't know Sanku. You go back and read some of the more disinterested accounts about India of the times, you would be surprised how hard Nehru had to work directly to get just about every one of those items accepted. He wrote a million letters to influence the politicians and people. He was very much a overwhelming influence.

There are still those in India who violently disagree with many of those items. If we tried to pass that list tomorrow democratically, there would be blood on the streets.

Wish there was more 'neutral' writing about him. MKG gets a new glossy publication every year. Nehru not so much.

I personally think its DESPITE Nehru rather than because of Nehru, but yes there is some food for thought here.

So why India, not Lanka, Nepal, BD, Burma, Bhutan, Maldives, Afghanistan, etc. Only difference is we had Nehru, they did not.