Strategic leadership for the future of India

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Mar 2009 05:06

WCB=WC Bonnerjee one of the early founders of INC.

Brihaspatiji, I thought Gopal Krishan Gokhale chose MKG to succeed him. Looks like a modern day Caliphate succession plan! The shura nominates and in the ulitmate limitits a shura of one.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Mar 2009 08:36

Yes I should have mentioned both of them. GKG and WCB both were keen to bring him over from SA. WCB was instrumental in arranging for the necessary logistics. It is understandable perhaps at that early stage, that small groups dedicated to a cause not yet in public fancy would "recruit" leadership rather than have them "thrown up" from below. But at some stage the process was taken over by forces not working for Indian interests. I would like to go into this transition, and the process of its hijack to see if we can get a solution for the present and the future.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2009 00:49

Do you think the transition was pre-or post-Independence? I think there were two stages. Phase I was pre-Independence when nationalist leaders were cast aside or marginalised. The Phase II was after Emergency.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Mar 2009 03:17

^ I agree. Need to think of the post-Independence angle. The British made it a point, and pretty successful at that, to infiltrate every secret or overt organization of Indians that could potentially serve as ideological or material leadership neuclei for Indians. If we go into the case depositions when the "seditious accused" are arraigned, the details are astonishing. This means that collaborators had to be there at all levels including the highest ones. I have other very reliable (including close family) sources that confirm that such things were indeed taking place.

The mechanism is perhaps utilizing the "eyes and ears" of the state to gather information about the vulnerabilities of significant individuals. If relatively immune, create situations whereby the individual can be "entrapped" or even "blackened" by fraud or false constructions. Those who appear too cautious or clever to be even tarred by "false constructions", are then liquidated, or eliminated. The very fact that people close and intimate to individuals are used for this purpose, is a double edged weapon in the hands of their controllers. For the moles can always be threatened with exposure themselves to maintain grip.

The process goes on very much within the "Left", and perhaps other "mainstream parties". This makes me think that the British machinery for such control has somehow been inherited or taken over by the post independence political groups. Or that the state machinery established by the British retained a deeply embedded structure to carry on the previous colonial manipulation mindset for whoever was in control of the state machinery. On the other hand, not sure if the threads still go back to Londonistan. For me '77 appears increasingly to be a penalty for IG to show too much independence,a nd a mild warning. The coordinated manifestation of opposition looks too orchestrated now the longer the time passes.

But the external thread is probably getting thinner, as more and more elite Indians are getting higher education inside India and provide less opportunity for the Tommys to get under the skin. An intensively fractured body politic made the external controllers incapable of controlling all the units of the '77 opposition for a long time. Realizing this difficulty, they therefore decided to physically liquidate IG when her return to power could not be politically prevented. Dramatic liquidation was not a very popular method with the British in the later phase of imperialism - their forte is slow poisoning and character assassination. Dramatic physical liquidation is popular with the US agencies. I guess it is a combination of both sources which now combine for their agenda.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Mar 2009 03:55

brihaspati wrote:
The mechanism is perhaps utilizing the "eyes and ears" of the state to gather information about the vulnerabilities of significant individuals. If relatively immune, create situations whereby the individual can be "entrapped" or even "blackened" by fraud or false constructions. Those who appear too cautious or clever to be even tarred by "false constructions", are then liquidated, or eliminated. The very fact that people close and intimate to individuals are used for this purpose, is a double edged weapon in the hands of their controllers. For the moles can always be threatened with exposure themselves to maintain grip.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3195500/IRF-EDITED2006-Rev30

Most of the people of India are seen as object of study for these academics to analyze and come to conclusion .( mostly wrong). just as the colonial Europeans did few centuries back. They employ native informants from India to get information about Indian subset of cultural behaviour and negate or ridicule such behaviour. Advertisement for native informants can be still found in the internet pages of universities which have south Asian studies. They use the native informants for information and then groom them to be true macaulytes who will look at fellow Indians as subject of study in future studies.

To contain Soviet influence, the US State Department allocated funds to American universities for studying the non-Western world, and the new field was called 'Area Studies'. Under this rubric, the notion of a 'South Asia' was born, along with far reaching consequences of balancing India with Pakistan, and trying to 'South Asianize' the identity of Indians and Indian civilization. This grouping of countries is a politically correct way of referring to former British colonies. It is the American equivalent of colonial Europe's field of Indology. Within these area studies, are somewhere between three and five faculty positions for East Asia (China, Japan, etc) studies, for every one position for South Asia. The government's funding was based on geo-political importance at a given time based on its strategic interests. The studies were more strategic and were designed to create experts in anthropology and social scientist who would work with the western experts. The leftist groups and NGOs and media were also cultivated to create a gigantic network in the name of social studies and progressive culture. The progressive ‘culture’ in India gained momentum by early 1980s and was dominant by mid 1990s. The purpose of the new studies and greater focus on India is explained in the next few sections.
Anthropologists have positioned the Indians being studied as ‘native informants’ in an asymmetric relationship. Given the power imbalance, often these native informants supply the data that is expected of them to fit into the western scholars’ paradigm, and the representation tends to be that of a primitive people as compared to the superior, ‘rational’ west. Hinduism has been studied when the new discipline ‘Indology’ was created in late 1800s. This started as a study of comparative language between Sanskrit and European languages but later took up the study of Hinduism and other religious texts. Academic scholars of religion reduce Hindu into exotica, sociology and anthropology, a story depicting backwardness in wait of western cures.

India is caught in a path which is essentially created by the US/UK state departments. Indian policymakers and think tanks have been influenced heavily by US/UK think tanks and policymakers for the last 50 years. The congress party after Rajiv Gandhi has almost become another tool of foreign powers. By demonizing the ‘other’ party they have given a short life to the party and in the process helped in its decay. But to influence a large nation US would need large amount of information. With the help of native informants, NGO and Indian think tanks the western universities are able to keep an watch inside India. But a larger institution or a think tank needs to process this information to drive policies inside India and Pakistan. There is only one large think tank which has been associated with India and the sub-continent for a long time. Brookings Institute has been the premier think tank for the study of India and is most probably the main think tank to influence the Indian policies inside India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2009 10:32

brishaspatiji, Two comments. The British worked very hard to reveal the inner secrets of Charles Parnell, the Irish rebel leader and this delayed Irish Independence by atleast five decades. So there is a background and method in their ways.

Also do you recall Somerset Maugham's Ashenden series where he goes after an Indian patriot Chandralal in Spain?

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 25 Mar 2009 19:25

Ramana garu, I think this is Chandralal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virendranath_Chattopadhyay

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2009 21:09

Thanks Abhi_G. Wow it was based on a true person! Always wondered about it! And to think he was related to Sarojini Naidu and to Nizam's College in Hyderabad.

What a guy! Looks like Stalin took care of the British interests>

That bio puts the whole Indian freedom struggle in a different light. Till now I thought the Zimmerman plot was German attempt to drag US/Mexico into the WWI. Never tied it to the Ghadar rebellion. There are other accounts in William Stephenson's "Man called Intrepid" that it(Zimmerman Telegram) was fake from British Intelligence.

Bengal partition suppressed/body blow to the pan Indian outlook of Bengali intelligentia. They got confined to Kolkota and the red brigade. A big chunk or a number of cylinders were shut off from the Indian intelligentia engine.

Also see the pan Indian composition of the freedom fighters abroad!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Mar 2009 22:15

Also dated but relevant material from Rajiv Malhotra:

Please read my article, "We the Nation(s) of India," that has appeared
in Tehelka magazine in India this past weekend. URL:

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp ... we_the.asp

It raises issues like the following:

-- India's fragmentation of identities

-- Fragments turning into politically unweildy and opportunistic vote
banking

-- These fragments becoming appropriated by foreign nexuses.
Pan-Islam, Global Christian Evangelism, and Maoist, representing the
three global civilizational forces respectively, are each carving out
a piece of the elephant.

-- Indian elites unwilling to deal with this issue and hiding behind
various fig leafs: denial of the problem; political correctness in
understanding the problem; only admitting those problems which they
feel are easily solvable. I refer to this as the Bollywood ending in
which "everyone lives happily ever afterwards."

-- The role of academic scholars like Romila Thapar and Martha
Nussbaum in exacerbating India's divisiveness, by promoting
"victimhood" of one Indian group against another.

-- Why Indian minority leaders are no Obama: they advance personal
careers not on integrated nation building but on divisive identity
manipulations.

-- Is this a superpower?

On a somewhat related topic, some of you might not have seen the
video of my earlier talk organized by the Asian-Indian Chamber in New
Jersey, just 10 days before the Mumbai attacks. I raised issues which

were troubling to some folks at the time, but it seems that recent
events make such public discussions imperative. Here's the url for the
2-hour panel including Q&A:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6836&hl=en

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 25 Mar 2009 23:46

http://www.google.com/archivesearch?hl= ... re-results

1890
1890 - Atulkrishna (Atul) Ghosh (Ghose) (1890-1966) was a Bengali Indian revolutionary, member of the Anushilan Samiti, and a leader of the Jugantar movement involved in Hindu German Conspiracy during World War I. Atul was born in 1890, in a Hindu middle-class ...Atulkrishna (Atul) Ghosh (Ghose) (1890-1966) was a Bengali Indian revolutionary, member of the Anushilan Samiti, and a leader of the Jugantar movement involved in Hindu German Conspiracy during World War I. Atul was born in 1890, in a Hindu middle-class family of the village Jaduboyra-Etmampur in Kushtia Sub-division, which was then in Nadia district, now in Bangladesh. His parents were Taresh Chandra and Binodini Devi. The couple had six children. The eldest ... Show more Show less
From Atulkrishna Ghosh facts - Freebase - Related web pages
www.freebase.com/view/en/atulkrishna_ghosh

1914
Oct 1914 - However, returning to India in the SS Namsang, Singh was arrested in October 1914 and later tried in the Lahore Conspiracy Case and sentenced to death.During World War I, the Ghadar Party was one of the key participants in the Hindu German Conspiracy that sought to trigger rebellion in the British Indian Army. Sohan Singh, as one of the top Ghadar leadership, returned to India at the outbreak of the war, in the wake of the Komagata Maru incidence to organise and direct the rebellion from India. However, returning to India in the SS Namsang, Singh was arrested in October 1914 and later tried in the Lahore Conspiracy Case ... Show more Show less
From Sohan Singh Bhakna: Information from Answers.com - Related web pages
www.answers.com/topic/sohan-singh-bhakna

1915
Jun 25, 1915 - The ship came into the spotlight when it was seized on 25 June 1915 by US customs officials at Grays Harbour and found to be carrying large quantities of small arms and ammunitions in violation of the Neutrality Acts. The arms were meant to be transferred to the ...The ship came into the spotlight when it was seized on 25 June 1915 by US customs officials at Grays Harbour and found to be carrying large quantities of small arms and ammunitions in violation of the Neutrality Acts. The arms were meant to be transferred to the SS Maverick at a rendezvous off the coast of Mexico. The Annie Larsen affair was one of the major setbacks of the failed Hindu German Conspiracy, and was one of the major charges in the trial that was at the time one ... Show more Show less
From Annie Larsen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Related web pages
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Larsen

1916
1916 - [४९] [१२१] [१२२] After Robert Lansing replaced Bryan as Secretary of State in 1916, Secretary of State for India Marquess of Crewe and Foreign Secretary Edward Grey forced Spring-Rice to raise the issue and the evidences obtained in Lahore Conspiracy ...[४९] [१२१] [१२२] After Robert Lansing replaced Bryan as Secretary of State in 1916, Secretary of State for India Marquess of Crewe and Foreign Secretary Edward Grey forced Spring-Rice to raise the issue and the evidences obtained in Lahore Conspiracy trial were presented to the American Government in February. The first investigations were opened in America at this time with the raid of the Wall Street office of Wolf von Igel, resulting in seizures of papers that ... Show more Show less
From हिंदु-जर्मन षडयंत्र - … - Related web pages
hi.wikipedia.org/.../%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%81- %E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A8_ ...

1917
1917 - In 1917, he was accused of involvement in the Hindu German Conspiracy to foment revolution in India. [citation needed] Though subsequently given a presidential pardon, [citation needed] he sold the house and moved with his family to San Francisco, never to return.In 1917, he was accused of involvement in the Hindu German Conspiracy to foment revolution in India. [citation needed] Though subsequently given a presidential pardon, [citation needed] he sold the house and moved with his family to San Francisco, never to return. The house was later owned by Henry Alexander Walker, president of American Factors, the successor firm to Hackfeld and Co., and another president of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association. Show more Show less
From Walker Estate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Related web pages
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Estate

Apr 6, 1917 - On April 6, 1917 President Wilson signed the house resolution declaring war on Germany. Immediately, that morning itself, Assistant Attorney General Charles Warren (who was working closely with Frank Polk - in charge of neutrality matters in the State ...On April 6, 1917 President Wilson signed the house resolution declaring war on Germany. Immediately, that morning itself, Assistant Attorney General Charles Warren (who was working closely with Frank Polk - in charge of neutrality matters in the State Department) ordered the United States Attorney in San Francisco, John W. Preston to arrest the Indians in the "Hindu-German Conspiracy". Ram Chandra (of the Ghadhar Party) and sixteen other Indian freedom fighters were ... Show more Show less
From A historical perspective of Americans of Asian... - Related web pages
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/manda ... stical.htm

Nov 12, 1917 - The Hindu German Conspiracy Trial commenced in the District Court in San Francisco, California on November 12 1917.... in which their paper was quoted.
From Ghadar Party: Facts, Discussion Forum, and... - Related web pages
www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Ghadar_Party

Nov 20, 1917 - The Hindu German conspiracy trial started in San Francisco on 20 November 1917. Despite attempts to focus on the machinations of the German agents, the Indians presented their position in terms of the ideals of the American Revolution. As the trial started ...The Hindu German conspiracy trial started in San Francisco on 20 November 1917. Despite attempts to focus on the machinations of the German agents, the Indians presented their position in terms of the ideals of the American Revolution. As the trial started, Jodh Singh, an Indian "whose testimony sent nine men, including his brothers to their death and condemned a score to life imprisonment in the Far East," pleaded with the court for an American square deal. Show more Show less
From Hindu German Conspiracy Trial - Wikipedia, the... - Related web pages
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_German_Conspiracy_Trial

1918
Apr 24, 1918 - Ram Chandra was assassinated on 24 April 1918 on the last day of the Hindu German Conspiracy Trial by Ram Singh,a fellow defendant, on the latter's belief that Ram Chandra was a British Agent.
From Ram Chandra Bharadwaj - Wikipedia, the free... - Related web pages
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Chandra_Bharadwaj

1947
Mar 1947 - Colonel Prem Kumar Sahgal married Lakshmi Sahgal in March 1947 in Lahore. Indian National Army (INA) Historical Independence movement · Militant movements · Ghadar Party · World War I · Hindu-German Conspiracy · Lala Hardayal · Rash Behari Bose ...Colonel Prem Kumar Sahgal married Lakshmi Sahgal in March 1947 in Lahore. Indian National Army (INA) Historical Independence movement · Militant movements · Ghadar Party · World War I · Hindu-German Conspiracy · Lala Hardayal · Rash Behari Bose · Taraknath Das · Barkatullah · Kabul mission · World War II · India in World War II · Imperial Japan · Pan Asianism · Greater East Asia · more. Show more Show less
From Prem Sahgal: Information from Answers.com - Related web pages
www.answers.com/topic/prem-sahgal

More info on the pre-independence leadership

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu%E2%8 ... Conspiracy

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Mar 2009 03:14

Deepest thanks to Abhi_G, Ramana, and Acharya,
for reminding me of "Chatto". Heard many stories of him as a child since ancestors had known him apparently quite well. In my researches on the expat Indian revolutionaries, especially those who gravitated in or out of Commiedom, his name came up prominently beside the other "colourful" name - M.N.Roy.

There are some fascinating questions thrown up by such people. But one aspect of the twisted evil of British thinking also comes out in the stories constructed about nationalist leaders who were untamable by the British. So strong is the pattern, that I now suspect whenever some salacious or "seamy" story of sexual intrigue or deviation floats up about an "enemy" of the British, I would give it a 99% weight that it originated in some halflit cavern of some MI in UK. Even the nature of the stories would give indications of the source - the national obsessions about polyamory, "English vice" and homosexuality. Agnes Smedley has earned a lot of "untoward attention", which makes me have several different "doubts" (she appears to have been one of that breed of ladies of the period who went seeking out alternative "gurus" who also happen to be of concern to the "British"- it comes out strikingly in her assessemnt of Mao).

The British have always carefully used the "Victorian+Shariati" shell that had descended on the pre-colonial Hindus, to damage nationalist leaders. This comes out in many of them having to either repress completely their sexual life, or try and keep it hidden. I am probably hitting on the danger-button here, but have never been able to digest the possible motivations in SCB having to hide his marriage and his family. His wife and children should have been honoured citizens of India, the least the nation could do to honour the memory of this patriot. It is agonizing to see how the British mindset still defines how we have to look at our nationalists.

The early Bengali intelligentsia's peculiar turn probably stems from their failure to mobilize the Muslims of Bengal. It was perhaps unfortunate, but inevitable, that the Bengali Hindu who had taken up modern education would reassert their search for identity and power in distinction from the Muslim. At the same time the Muslims failed to break out of the grip of their theologians and aristocracy and fell behind in education. By the time of the rise of Hindu Bengali dominated search for reassertion, the Muslims had fallen far behind enough to be goaded into jealousy by their leadership. With one of the larger groups of Muslim proportion, this was one province where to be successful Hindus needed to coopt the Muslims.

Failure to mobilize this large subpopulation, probably led the Bengali intelligentsia to search for alternatives. The British and European educational influence probably prevented them from giving enough credit or potential to the Hindu Indian of other provinces as material for nationalism. And they looked outside of India for support. The Bengali search for reassertion is a search for national identity, but gone awry because of confusion over which subgroup of Indian society to base for power and assertion. They turned to communism, in search of a "class" that will propel them to reassertion, as also a class hoped to be sufficiently "liberated" from "backward Hindu framework" to support their cause. Their experience in the province coloured their thought forever probably that they could not adopt "Hindu" as basis of reassertion as that would alienate the "Muslim" and so they needed an ideology that did not have any religious or Indic connotation. Marxism appeared to satisfy all these criteria.

It is difficult to understand the reason. Vivekananda had pointed in the right direction. But his missioin turned to "service" and stuck mostly to "service" (not discussing the rumours of covert support for the independence struggle) after his passing away. The entire panoramic and fascinating trajectory of the Bengali nationalists is quite revealing. How provincial experiences when allowed to shape long-term strategic thinking leads us to dead-ends of leadership.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Mar 2009 03:29

Talking about leadership of post Independence period, lets not forget many young promising personalities in both Kangress and BJP have been eliminated in recent past .

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Mar 2009 04:01

Jupiterji, If you watched Satyajit Ray's "The world and the Home" which is about the 1905 partition, this is alluded to.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 26 Mar 2009 04:30

ramana wrote:Thanks Abhi_G. Wow it was based on a true person! Always wondered about it! And to think he was related to Sarjojni Naidu and to Nizam's College in Hyderabad.

It seems he knew quite a few other people as well - Madama Cama, Savarkar, Lala Rai, and Bipin Chandra Pal (in addition to several others).

Madame Cama (Bhikaji Rustom Cama or before marriage Bhikaji Sorab Patel) is probably one of the most interesting people in the history of Indian independence. She lived the life of a rich, Parsi women but married a pro-British lawyer and eventually divorced for ideological reasons. She refused to send her children to schools in India and instead sent them abroad and continue seditious activity there.

She was a staunch feminist who believed in gender equality.

Simply amazing. Some snippets from the Wikipedia article:

Bhikhaiji joined one of the many teams working out of Grant Medical College (which would subsequently become Haffkine's plague vaccine research center), in an effort to provide care for the afflicted, and (later) to inoculate the healthy. Cama subsequently contracted the plague herself, but survived. Severely weakened, she was sent to Britain for medical care in 1901.

In her appeal for human rights, equality and for autonomy from Great Britain, she unfurled what she called the "Flag of Indian Independence".[n 2] That flag, a modification of the Calcutta Flag, was co-designed by Cama, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Shyamji Krishna Varma, and would later serve as one of the templates upon which the current national flag of India is based.

Bikhaiji Cama bequeathed most of her personal assets to the Avabai Petit Orphanage for girls, which established a trust in her name. Rs. 54,000 (1936: £39,300; $157,200) to her family's fire temple, the Framji Nusserwanjee Patel Agiary at Mazgaon, in South Bombay.

From the Virendranath article:
"In connection with the Tinnevelly Conspiracy Case in February 1912, Madame Cama published an article showing that these political assassinations were in accordance with the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita"

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Mar 2009 04:40

Prem wrote
Talking about leadership of post Independence period, lets not forget many young promising personalities in both Kangress and BJP have been eliminated in recent past .

Do you mean cases like Mahajan? Or are you including also cases like SG (male) RG (senior)? If you can provide a more detailed list, it would be very good. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am trained to search for patterns. I would like to analyze the "data".

Ramanaji,
Yes watched it! Rabindranath was genuinely concerned about both aspects - sex+communal divide. Another of his stories recently made into movie also has the characteristic subtle reference - "Sand in the eye". But his most succint summary of the "Bengali extremist" is in the novel "Four stages" ("Chaar Adhyay"). But thanks to you and Acharya, Abhi_G again. I had some sudden insights on things I have agonized long on. I think we can begin to look forward. I will try to write in sequence, but don't know whether it will be appropriate here. A great day!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Mar 2009 09:22

What was the role of JBS Haldane and PMS Blackett in post Independence India?

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 26 Mar 2009 20:08

A dated article from Rediff on serious differences between Bose and Patel that ultimately led to Bose's resignation from INC. Critical is the modus operandi of the INC in nominating a leader that does not have majority votes - still in vogue today. Also something worthwhile to think is what effect the devastating war had on Sardar's opinions in the next 4-5 years which is not there in this text. Still unanswered: why was Nehru allowed to supersede Patel?

http://www.rediff.com/news/mar/25sardar.htm

prahaar · Post by **prahaar** » 26 Mar 2009 20:45

Brihaspatiji, is it ok if your posts could be reused (with due reference ofcourse ) to enlighten individuals outside of BR to think about how & why of Indian leadership creation process? Most people (even the educated ones who are not into study of these things are horribly unaware), even a large section of our so-called elite is blind to this perspective ( not necessarily by intention).

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Mar 2009 21:05

prahaarji,
if it is of any use, you are most welcome. It is possible that when more people are exposed to such lines of thinking, we might get even greater insights, and I would be most grateful if others can enrich this. Regards.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 26 Mar 2009 21:18

from one of the recent posts - I had long hypothesized that there is a pattern in the assassinations of MKG, IG, RG (mysterious deaths of an air-marshall, LSastriji, Sanjay). In politics especially, it seems that whoever shows signs of obstinate, individualistic and independent tendency is targeted. They are tolerated only so far as they serve or do not threaten "Brit" purpose, or if initially they had not shown such intransigence. Especially anyone on whom large groups and cross-sections of Indian society begin to pin their hopes for the future on. This could be a collaborative effort on the part of the countries essentially dominating the UNSC.

The only person allowed to die naturally in the chain is JLN, way too leaning in favour of Brit interests (at that stage not necessarily always coinciding with that of the US). We only see the hand of the assassin, but not the head. Is it possible that awareness of the Democles's sword dangling over their lineage, have made the G-family increasingly serve EJ and UK interests in a strategic political sense, and take a position increasingly against the "Hindu", national consolidation, and Indic empowerment and pro EJ or Muslim, - all aspects that coincide with the long term desires of British policy for the subcontinent? Is it also an indication of dynastic understanding only in the mind of the assassin which thinks that Indian regeneration depends on single individuals?

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 26 Mar 2009 22:29

brihaspati wrote:
Prem wrote
Talking about leadership of post Independence period, lets not forget many young promising personalities in both Kangress and BJP have been eliminated in recent past .
Do you mean cases like Mahajan? Or are you including also cases like SG (male) RG (senior)? If you can provide a more detailed list, it would be very good. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am trained to search for patterns. I would like to analyze the "data".

Some data points: Rajesh Pilot, Madhav Rao Scindia.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Mar 2009 22:31

L.N. Mishra and Mohan Kumaramangalam in the mid 70s.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 26 Mar 2009 22:49

Both Western and Eastern powers have played their role . Indians are naive in thinking they have "friends" in international politics.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Mar 2009 01:35

Abhi_G wrote
Critical is the modus operandi of the INC in nominating a leader that does not have majority votes - still in vogue today. Also something worthwhile to think is what effect the devastating war had on Sardar's opinions in the next 4-5 years which is not there in this text. Still unanswered: why was Nehru allowed to supersede Patel?

I have read partly Sardar's correspondence. But the exchange described here, is very much realistic. I have seen this at close quarters in operation. Personal dislikes, fears, jealousies, all get covered up in the guise of polemical battles. Especially on trivial issues. A dignified and pretendending to be proper "trolling" if we might say. The Congress of the time had only one person batting for it, who could cross regional divides to a certain extent - MKG. Most of the others were the coming together of regional aspirants who had probably realized early their own limitations. Knowing that they could not or rather would not mobilize regions with which they did not identify. They formed a stable clique where each kept the other in check.

SCB was already breaking the mould. He was the one other person who appeared to be equally at home in the far North west, east and south. He appeared to be gaining followers from among IM - a possibly strong source of allergy in Sardar. SCB had to be eliminated, and the Brits probably wanted to facilitate the ganging up against SCB. It is not unlikely that the Brits already had moles within the upper echelons of the Congress. (the 1943 white paper published by the colonial gov gives details of CWC meetings on crucial days).

The same considerations and manipulations that removed SCB, removed Sardar. Sardar must have had a sense of deja vu when he had to swallow his own pride about the leaders being selected by popular will (Sardar was the organizational popular will choice). I guess he simply got a taste of his own medicine. On the other hand, MKG's move could have been pre-emptive. He perhaps sensed or was given to understand that if JLN was not "selected" there would be a lot of trouble and mischief from the British.

Five hawks and a dove will choose the dove as the leader, since they dont want the other hawks to become leader. Moreover they all hope that they will be able to eat up the dove.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 27 Mar 2009 11:12

Brihaspati, I do not have nowhere near the knowledge, information, or insight into the hidden history of India's independence movement. As an aside, I think analyzing this phase of history is critical. One thing that has always struck me when I read the type of disjointed rootless history that we can obtain in India is that despite the fact that MKG supposedly fought to end British rule in India, his actions had an uncanny outcome: they seemed to help the British, or hurt them very very minimally. Even when Tilak etc. had asked for Complete Swaraj, MKG was proudly proclaiming his allegience to the British.

He seems to have been jailed just enough to make him a leader. (just enough to give him credibility to the masses, but not severly enough to break his spirit.) The type of soul-sapping incarcerations of Guru Ram Singh, Savarkar, Tilak were not meted out to him. His wasn't sent out to Kalapani in Andamans, Burma, or Singapore. He was not lathi charged like Lajpat Rai, nor liquidated like Bhagat Singh. He never met with any accident, or any desease or any assasinations by others (pre-1947). If anything, his hold on the INC seems guided and facilitated. Despite fighting the British or wearing the loin cloth, there is an unmistakable sense of MKG looking up to and being intimidated of the British. At no point did MKG stood up and challenged the basic right of the British to be here in India. He, as you said, played by the rules. He did not proclaim that British were persona non grate in India. He never seemed to have challenged the very right of British to be here; he seemed happy with the role of a supplicant to the British court.

Then you couple this with some puzzling bizzarre things like Caliphate movement, support of JLN, opposition to Bose & Bhagat Singh. (with Bhagat Singh, there is some prevarication he indulges in.) He does not take a cue from Bhagat Singh or Bose that they did not even recognize the British right be in India. While he comes out as fanatically non-violent, his support for WW-1 & 2 is puzzling to say the least.

Coming back to his support for JLN; it seems irrational. Gandhi is dhoti clad devout ascetic brahmchari Hindu; JLN is an upper class pseudo-English almost-Muslim-in-taste athiest who has an affair with Mountbatten's wife. They could not be more different. Patel, if anything, was closer to him in tastes and likes and dislikes. Not to mention that MKG's support for Muslim causes and his fasts for releasing funds to Pakistan are exactly in line with the British support for the Pakistanis & Muslims. It is as if British are directling a show ... they direct Jinnah to some acts, then direct MKG to do things ... all of this ends up as a big pathway for TSP's formation.

I hate to say it, but looking at all the disparate bizzarre events it seems to be as if MKG himself might have been an agent of the British themselves. Maybe paid, maybe unpaid, maybe just manipulated. I certainly don't have proof, but if proof came it would not seem outlandish to me. There seem to be too many winks and nods of him with the British.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 27 Mar 2009 11:15

Brihaspati,

Can we have a thread "Ask Brihaspati"? You say a lot of interesting things, and imply and tease us with lot more. I wish to ask more questions, but often don't beause I am afraid it will spoil the main flow of the thread. Can we have a thread like "Ask Brihaspati" where we can discuss all those things.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Mar 2009 17:57

Surinderji,
I think we can discuss almost any questions of relevance in the Indian interests thread freely. Just drop a line on these threads that you are taking the question there. I am following the wisdom of Ramanaji's observation for me to try and hover in a few threads. It definitely helps me keep focused. But I would be delighted if you can give my curiosity a nudge to explore other caves! A lot of interestsing comments from you and others. Will try to do justice over the weekend. Regards.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 27 Mar 2009 20:04

brihaspati wrote:... I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am trained to search for patterns.

There is no difference between the two

---

surinder wrote:Brihaspati, I do not have nowhere near the knowledge, information, or insight into the hidden history of India's independence movement. As an aside, I think analyzing this phase of history is critical. One thing that has always struck me when I read the type of disjointed rootless history that we can obtain in India is that despite the fact that MKG supposedly fought to end British rule in India, his actions had an uncanny outcome: they seemed to help the British, or hurt them very very minimally. Even when Tilak etc. had asked for Complete Swaraj, MKG was proudly proclaiming his allegience to the British.

He seems to have been jailed just enough to make him a leader. (just enough to give him credibility to the masses, but not severly enough to break his spirit.) The type of soul-sapping incarcerations of Guru Ram Singh, Savarkar, Tilak were not meted out to him. His wasn't sent out to Kalapani in Andamans, Burma, or Singapore. He was not lathi charged like Lajpat Rai, nor liquidated like Bhagat Singh. He never met with any accident, or any desease or any assasinations by others (pre-1947). If anything, his hold on the INC seems guided and facilitated. Despite fighting the British or wearing the loin cloth, there is an unmistakable sense of MKG looking up to and being intimidated of the British. At no point did MKG stood up and challenged the basic right of the British to be here in India. He, as you said, played by the rules. He did not proclaim that British were persona non grate in India. He never seemed to have challenged the very right of British to be here; he seemed happy with the role of a supplicant to the British court.

To the above "patterns" aka conspiracy theories, add the following (take it or leave it -- dont bother asking for proofs, sources and links)

1. Britishers also helped Mohanbhai by ensuring that ToI gives a lot of coverage to Mohanbhai. More the publicity, the youth will fall in love without even understanding what vision he has, if at all he has any vision.

2. Mohanbhia's dukaan of Satya, Ahimsa, Khaadi needed huge subsidies round the clock. The youth would spin charkhaa and produce Khaadi which was garbage. Its sale value was below the cost !! And so huge subsidy was needed to support charkhaa spinning. And bhajan singing also needed subsidies. The cash came from elitemen such as Bajaj and Birla. If Viceroy had just made a phone call and threatened Bajaj et al not pay a dime to Mohanbhai, the Mohanbhai's dukaan would gone bankrupt. IOW, British allowed Birla et al to fund Mohanbhai's Satya, Ahimsa, Khaadi dukaan.

3. Why did Britishers let Birla et al fund Mohanbhai? Because if Mohanbhai's dukaan selling Ahimsa and Satya were to close, the charkha spinning and bhajan singing youth would start looking for alternatives. There was no youtube or BR back then to keep the restless Indian youth busy

. So if Mohanbhai's dukaan were to close, some of the youth might have started opting for Bhagatji's ways and means to get freedom, which would have increased British casualties to a point that Brits may be forced to leave India without getting chance of shaping new India.

So Mohanbhai was keeping the youth busy by making them spin charkha, sing bhajans etc rather than teach them weapon use. There by, Mohanbhai was preventing youth from becoming followers of Bhagatji. So Britishers helped Mohanbhai by asking ToI to print photo of Mohanbhai everyday and let Indian elitemen fund the dukaan of Mohanbhai.

.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 27 Mar 2009 21:08

^^^^

Rahul Mehta, Interesting points. What you say only adds to the points I raised. I want to add one more thing: British, for all their faults, are very pragmatic people. This quality allows them to manage conflicts and problems with least cost. Mind you, I did not way "wise", for if they were they would not be enslaving 1/4th of humanity to enhance their standard of living. Americans also have this uncanny pragmatic side.

Now they quite very well understood that some escape valve is needed in India. So they formed the Congress Party, started by a Britisher, of all people. This is party is encouraged to be the sole speaker of Indians. Its leaders are British educated pseudo-Brits, with English tastes and sensibilities, but not the British war-like fighting spirit. They were all people who had not ability to wage physical war, even if their life depended on it. Few of them were sons of the soil. British pragmatism meant that they understood that the leaders cannot be viewed as complete lackeys (that will destroy their credibility), so they were given light sentences, they were "honored" with frequent meetings with British. I mean what are the chances that Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev, Bose, Azad would be granted a meeting and Britain would be seen negotiating with them?

None of its preferred leaders like Gandhi, JLN etc. are lathi-charged like Lala Lajpat Rai, or shot like those in Jallianwal Bagh, or shot like Azad. None of them are sent to 10 years rigorous imprisonments like Savarkar and countless others. These led by Gandhi propose a strategy to fight freedom which is unique in human history: they felt quite comfortable in the role of supplicants (beggers if you will) in the court of the British. JLN had an affair with the wife of the person he is supposedly negotiating. (Talk about Conflict of Interest!!!). If the British truly wanted to get rid of JLN, Gandhi etc., there are numerous ways: small accidents, auto accidents, mysterious illnesses, family feuds, riots where they could be eliminated. The most bizzarre, and in my opinion the most revealing, is the amazing coincidence of Gandhi supporting both World Wars (which were British do or die wars).

You mention TOI, who owned it at that time?

You mentioned Birla. This is also interesting. There is no way Brila would make money if the British were angry with him. They could liquidate him in no time, if they wished. The fact that they let him finance Gandhi is highly suspect.

All this, of course had enormous implications for India. It still does. This set up the tone of the nation after independence too. The progeny of JLN still rules India and lives in the best addresses in India with no known source of income. The family of Bose, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev lives in penury.

Thanks.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 27 Mar 2009 21:28

(Talk about Conflict of Interest!!!)

Enjoy maadi. charminar share maadi.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_us7czoLnJzU/S ... nehru1.JPG

sum · Post by **sum** » 27 Mar 2009 21:42

RM-ji,
very very interesting points...

Thats why i love BR (for bringing out the not so obvious points to the fore)...

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 27 Mar 2009 22:31

Rahul Mehta ji thanks for the business angle.

It would be nice to know the role of the native business houses in those times. If the indigenous business houses were funding the INC, then the tacit understanding of not having a war/unrest inside the country does have some value. Although, that line of logic fails completely, when the nation faces threats of complete annihilation. If the survival of the state is paramount, there are no second chances but to have war. Was the INC committed to the preservation of the native business interests in the pre-independence period that propelled them to make compromises? Although it seems that post independence, their policies completely changed and Indian industries suffered right until the 90s.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 27 Mar 2009 23:28

JwalaMukhi wrote:
(Talk about Conflict of Interest!!!)
Enjoy maadi. charminar share maadi.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_us7czoLnJzU/S ... nehru1.JPG

And please note that Jawaharbhai is wearing Khaadi.

---

sum wrote:RM-ji,
very very interesting points. Thats why i love BR (for bringing out the not so obvious points to the fore)...

Thanks

. And pls note -- whatever I have thought, derived and said in all threads in all posts till date is trivial and obvious. The only non-trivial and unobvious thing that always comes to my mind is -- why others before me did not think of all this?

---

Abhi_G wrote:Rahul Mehta ji thanks for the business angle.

It would be nice to know the role of the native business houses in those times. If the indigenous business houses were funding the INC, then the tacit understanding of not having a war/unrest inside the country does have some value. Although, that line of logic fails completely, when the nation faces threats of complete annihilation. If the survival of the state is paramount, there are no second chances but to have war. Was the INC committed to the preservation of the native business interests in the pre-independence period that propelled them to make compromises? Although it seems that post independence, their policies completely changed and Indian industries suffered right until the 90s.

Welcome

. And now we are coming to REAL juice --- analyzing role of Indian elitemen back then. Many times we all blame Mohanbhai for doing this or not doing that. We forget that Mohanbhai was dependent on ToI and other mediamen for fame and he was dependent on Indian elitemen for funds. And without fame and funds, Mohanbhai was zero. So he could not have taken steps that would have resulted in drastic loss of support of elitemen or media-owners. So many steps he took, that we now dislike, was due to the Mohanbhai's dependence on funds and mediamen. eg He cooked up garbage called "trusteeship of private property". Was he on weeds? NO. He cooked this garbage so that gullible volunteers can be misguided and elitemen can be happy. And why Mohanbhai did NOT ask British to spare Bhagatji? Because Indian elitemen and British did not want Bhagatji alive. So important was elitemen's support, that Subhashji had to leave India. Because he could see that no Indian elitemen is willing to support him and all of them are willing to support Mohanbhai. The Indian elitemen too did not have any choice --- one flick of viceroy's pen and they would go from riches to rags. So the Indian elitemen back then danced as per the British tune. The Congress leaders danced as per the elitemen's tune.

British created INC to misguide Indians as far as possible. The leaders were promoted or demoted via Indian elitemen, who had no choice but to act as per British wish. So much of the Congress was a British show. To give some legitimacy, elections were held inside Congress, to make workers feel important. But the elitemen and their money decided who will get opportunity to campaign and so mostly, elitemen had their say. Sometimes, elitemen would fail to control election, and unmanageable person like Subhajee would rise. In that case, Mohanbhai would use his de-facto veto to bring the Congress back in British line.

-----------

surinder wrote: Rahul Mehta, Interesting points. What you say only adds to the points I raised. I want to add one more thing: British, for all their faults, are very pragmatic people. This quality allows them to manage conflicts and problems with least cost. Mind you, I did not way "wise", for if they were they would not be enslaving 1/4th of humanity to enhance their standard of living. Americans also have this uncanny pragmatic side. Now they quite very well understood that some escape valve is needed in India. So they formed the Congress Party, started by a Britisher, of all people. This is party is encouraged to be the sole speaker of Indians. Its leaders are British educated pseudo-Brits, with English tastes and sensibilities, but not the British war-like fighting spirit. They were all people who had not ability to wage physical war, even if their life depended on it. Few of them were sons of the soil. British pragmatism meant that they understood that the leaders cannot be viewed as complete lackeys (that will destroy their credibility), so they were given light sentences, they were "honored" with frequent meetings with British. I mean what are the chances that Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev, Bose, Azad would be granted a meeting and Britain would be seen negotiating with them?

None of its preferred leaders like Gandhi, JLN etc. are lathi-charged like Lala Lajpat Rai, or shot like those in Jallianwal Bagh, or shot like Azad. None of them are sent to 10 years rigorous imprisonments like Savarkar and countless others. These led by Gandhi propose a strategy to fight freedom which is unique in human history: they felt quite comfortable in the role of supplicants (beggers if you will) in the court of the British. JLN had an affair with the wife of the person he is supposedly negotiating. (Talk about Conflict of Interest!!!). If the British truly wanted to get rid of JLN, Gandhi etc., there are numerous ways: small accidents, auto accidents, mysterious illnesses, family feuds, riots where they could be eliminated. The most bizzarre, and in my opinion the most revealing, is the amazing coincidence of Gandhi supporting both World Wars (which were British do or die wars).

You mention TOI, who owned it at that time?

You mentioned Birla. This is also interesting. There is no way Brila would make money if the British were angry with him. They could liquidate him in no time, if they wished. The fact that they let him finance Gandhi is highly suspect.

All this, of course had enormous implications for India. It still does. This set up the tone of the nation after independence too. The progeny of JLN still rules India and lives in the best addresses in India with no known source of income. The family of Bose, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev lives in penury. Thanks.

ToI was owned by British company - Bennett and Colemen. Now it is owned by Indians, who AFAIT, are puppets of Americans. I have bolded some sentences from your posts. And they are very very important.

British formed Congress to misguide Indians along with creating a safety value. Except one or two, everyone in Congress was Indian, and so Indians would think as "one of us". But elitemen funded the leaders British decide and so British were deciding the leaders in Congress to a considerable extent. The leaders knew the importance of the elitemen's support and so obeyed them and so thus, they did what British wanted.

British could have resorted to brute force, but that would make angry Indians join Germans or French or Russians en-masse. So they did not have choice of using brute force en-masse. So they took this way of misguiding Indians via Congress. All this is relevant even today.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 27 Mar 2009 23:47

Rahul Mehta wrote:And pls note -- whatever I have thought, derived and said in all threads in all posts till date is trivial and obvious. The only non-trivial and unobvious thing that always comes to my mind is -- why others before me did not think of all this?

RM,

You are right, it is elementary and fairly trivial to join these dots, but I never had done it in the past. As they say: follow the money!!!

The sordid tale of JLN & MKG stabbing Bhagat/Rajguru/Sukhdev is shameful. JLN spoke from both sides of the mouth: criticising them and supporting them meekly. Were it not for the enormous public fascination with them (and Bose) JLN & MKG would have been brutal in criticizing them. What I find shocking is that they could not look at the tender ages of Bhagat Singh & friends and admire for his courage, the maturity of his views. What happened to even the bare minimum respect for an opponent's courage and sharpness of mind and sprity of action or love for India. We give that to the TSP army, for crying out loud. In their mind, Jallianwalla did not merit a Bhagat Singh response, but Germany's attack on UK caused him to deviate from non-violence path.

As an aside: Strong power know the importance of creating or destroying leadership in their opposing camps. They can use this to devastating effect. E.g. Policemen when dealing with Gangs will act extra friendly and nice to one member, with visible winks or pats. This immediately sets up alarms & doubts in the minds of the other members about the reliability of said member, usually leading to his extermination by his own gangs. Such doubts can be planted. Or they can pretend to beat an informant to increase his standing in the gang.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Mar 2009 23:48

RM wrote: why others before me did not think of all this?

Its not like others have not thought like you before. They did and created the atmosphere, the platform for you to articulate the thoughts. And they still guid the process by asking leading questions.

Now try to figure out what happened to the funds that the Viceroy transferred from India to London to prop up the British Sterling during WWII in order to pay for the arms and supplies that the US wanted to sell the Brits? This was before Lend Lease took effect.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Mar 2009 04:03

Rahul Mehta wrote
brihaspati wrote:
... I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am trained to search for patterns.
There is no difference between the two

Well my training includes, not only the "search" but also the "testing". "Testing" is the difference between the two.

RM's scenario reminds me of my dad's rendering of a similar line. I think we have to be cautious before coming to final conclusions about MKG. There are two phases of his life that are surrounded in mystery and haze. His educational stay in UK and his move to and stay in South Africa, and the second being his last years from the retraction of the Quit India movement to his assassination.

These are two phases, when he is apparently out of sync with the British. His conflicts with the South African government are quite genuine, and equally puzzling are the strange signals of moderation towards him as manifested in interventions by London in tha latter phase of the South African "struggle".

The two leaders who had significant "changes" in realizations while in a British jail are MKG and JLN. This does not necesssarily imply "active collaboration" or establishment of secret handshakes. But both of them suddenly "realize" that their struggle is not against the "British" per se, but for "self-determination" of Indians. I would not immediately see red in such changes. Given the backgrounds or individual psychological profiles, it is possible, that MKG thought of a much longer term method to achieve what he thought were achievable objectives for India.

MKG most likely came to the conclusion, that he had to use factions within British parliamentary politics to sustain any neucleus of Indian political self-assertion. Moreover, such neuclei had to be sustained in forms that would paralyze the British state machinery in India in the sense that the typical "liquidation" type British actions on Indian patriots could not be undertaken as the latter could be used by MKG to feed into British parliamentary opposition. MKG does seem to have learned the value and mode of manipulating the media quite early, as early as in South African phase.

On the other hand, MKG also saw that for his line to succeed, he had to take up a position against the "Bhagatji" category. Otherwise he would not be able to manipulate the parliamentary opposition at London. MKG's transition to India is crucial regarding the historical timepoint. He comes over during the war in Europe, the first well publicized armed attacks against the British in the modern phase had taken place about 7 years previously with the subsequent years filled with other armed insurrectionist attempts and the brutal repression brought down in revenge - including the infamous prison island of Andamans.
MKG must have seen that the "insurrectionists" were "failing" because large parts of the common Indian population were not yet sufficiently involved (in many cases "commons" helped in nabbing the "insurrectionists").

In this background, MKG must have looked around for the social class most likely to be enticed to support his programme. He found the Indian business and legal professional elite to be most susceptible to his charms, and for very obvious reasons. The beginning of the war and the subsequent years is a period of growth of a parasitic upper crust in India. Of pure landlords by approximately 2.5 times from 1901 to 1921, and and tenant landowners perhaps almost 28 fold. At the same time there was drop in peasant landowners, with increasing stratification and downgrading to share croppers.

British transformation of pre-colonial pre-capitalist agrarian relations towards modern industrial capitalism was incomplete and uneven, perhaps deliberately to maintain imperilaist extraction of capital through non-equivalent exchange. Thus this would have created a growing business class interest which would like to have greater capital investments, access to external or other British markets, opportunities to invest mercantile capital extracted through increasing usury on peasants. Such a business class would also look for protection against any "lower stratum" movement that threatened to reverse the local process of enriching them. Thus they were ina complex dynamic. In one direction their rise was a direct result of British transformation of existing land and mercantile relations and therefore dependent on British patronage. On the other hand the British were not allowing them to expand beyond a certain range.

MKG's genius probably lies in identifying the class most likely to allow itself to be a tool for his agenda. I would say, that the three used each other - rather than the British doing all the manipulations. In doing so each of them compromised with others on issues that were less of a priority to each so that they each could achieve their pet agendas.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 28 Mar 2009 09:09

None of its preferred leaders like Gandhi, JLN etc. are lathi-charged like Lala Lajpat Rai, or shot like those in Jallianwal Bagh, or shot like Azad. None of them are sent to 10 years rigorous imprisonments like Savarkar and countless others. These led by Gandhi propose a strategy to fight freedom which is unique in human history: they felt quite comfortable in the role of supplicants (beggers if you will) in the court of the British. JLN had an affair with the wife of the person he is supposedly negotiating. (Talk about Conflict of Interest!!!). If the British truly wanted to get rid of JLN, Gandhi etc., there are numerous ways: small accidents, auto accidents, mysterious illnesses, family feuds, riots where they could be eliminated. The most bizzarre, and in my opinion the most revealing, is the amazing coincidence of Gandhi supporting both World Wars (which were British do or die wars).

This seems like a no-brainer. Considering that this was a time of great British perfidy, double-talk and strategems, colonialism, a British backed political party (Congress), and the scenario you painted above, it doesn't seem like a conspiracy to me.

They supported Jinnah didn't they? The British backed whoever they felt would give the greatest dividends to themselves. This seems more like history rather than just a silly hunch.

___

Gandhiji may have been a "crafty bania" in his early stages but we have to remember that he was highly devout and very religious in the most sincerest sense - he probably hated violence so much he would have hit them with a stick to get them to stop fighting (end sarcasm - but I suppose he did do that during the riots).

One also has to consider that in his later years, he began to drink his own avatar kool-aid by truly believing he contained some divine spark that the rest of us don't have or Gods forbid felt like they were talking to him.

Nehru is the only one who I can think of as being wily and naive at the same time depending on who he was interacting with (naive with the British, wily with Indians).

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Mar 2009 05:38

There are two political leaders of the pre-independence period whom we cannot dismiss lightly. One of them is MKG. I happened to be quite close as a teenager with someone who had been a "close" follower of MKG. Over a period of almost 6 years I finished the 90 volumes of collected works of MKG in his collection, and also had long debates over MKG's role. This person became a "convert" after starting out as an "anarchist", and coming also under the influence of "Marx" for a brief period. I will never forget what he said once, "I would have doubts about you as a patriot if you are not angry with MKG before the age of 30, and doubts about you as an Indic if you dont admire him after the age of 30".

MKG's courage is something I salute, for I have faced decisions that he had faced on a much larger scale. And analyzing my own thoughts and inner reactions, I cannot help but see the extraordinarily immense courage and will that he must have had. And it is here, that I began to see why so many came under his spell. I remain an ardent critic of many of his actions and policies and the effect he has had on Indian politics, but I deeply admire and respect him at the same time for his fearlessness and determination. We cannot start on our path forward without giving respect and acknowledgement where it is due.

Some of those qualities are sadly missed in our leaders. A leader who means what he/she says, and is ready even to face off his own followers over a point of principle, wiiling to sacrifice popularity and material or even electoral success, will win the hearts of the Indian "commons". I have seen this at work in the first person, and therefore know that it will work. It is not an abstract theoretical claim, but based on direct personal experience.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Mar 2009 05:47

What he did was to see that the ball could be dribbled away from the stated idea to keep it in play till knogdom come. He ad the vision to see that India could be free and took away the movement founded /allowed by the Brits as a safety valve.

Yes as a youngster I didnt think much of him but as I grew older and read his Hind swaraj I realised his greatness.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 29 Mar 2009 07:51

Rahul Mehta : And pls note -- whatever I have thought, derived and said in all threads in all posts till date is trivial and obvious. The only non-trivial and unobvious thing that always comes to my mind is -- why others before me did not think of all this?

surinder: You are right, it is elementary and fairly trivial to join these dots, but I never had done it in the past.

ramana: Its not like others have not thought like you before. They did and created the atmosphere, the platform for you to articulate the thoughts. And they still guid the process by asking leading questions.

err ... Sunrider, my remark was addressed anyone here. It was more against the eminents who wrote textbooks and landmark articles. The eminents have NOT discussed the fact that Mohanbhai's decision were based on the decisions of the elitemen who funded Mohanbhai. Nor have they disclosed the logistic details, which would prove importance of funds. E.g. Mahadevbhai, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit and many others who ran operations in Ashrams have repeatedly made comments that these Ashrams would not run without subsidies. To the extent, that many operation-conscious and logistic-conscious activists opposed Khaadi on this very ground. But the eminents have chosen to ignore their comments as well as ignore the effects of subsidies on Mohanbhai's decisions.

Ramana,

I 100% agree with you. BRites and non-BRites who discuss these things, including anti-RM elements, have contributed a lot towards the good or bad thoughts I have come up with. And I have always believed that the atmosphere has a lot to do with the cultivation of thoughts. (Which is I oppose over-protection of patents and IP. And I have proposed "50% income tax on profits after three times the cost have been recovered from patents" etc etc)

===========

Now back to Mohanbhai ,

The central issue comes wrt Mohanbhai is - he was dependent on elitemen for funds. And how important role funds played? Well, he was able to defeat Bhagatji, Subhashji etc in the market because he had more funds. Otherwise, Bhagatji and company had far more mass-appeal than Mohanbhai. And Subhashji proved that even in Congress, he had more appeal than Mohanbhai. Mohanbhai had campaigned against Subhashji, and publicly told everyone that victory of Subhashji would be his personal defeat. And yet Congressmen's inner heart voted for Subhashji. This was despite 10 years of brainwashing Congress activists with Khaadi, Satya, Ahmisa etc. All this proves that Mohanbhai was never able to convince commons or even Congressmen that his Ahmisa, Satya and Khaadi was all that good. Yet Mohanbhai was able to get much bigger market share of activists. Bhagatji and Company, Subhashji and Company etc were routed in the market. This was ONLY because of raw cash coming from elitemen. And cash came in two main forms -- subsidies towards Mohanbhai's operations and subsidies towards mediamen who printed Mohanbhai's picture on page-1 and page-3. Mohanbhai used to ask poor people to contribute pennies, but that was only to show that his operations are running on money from poor and their support. This was an eyewash to hide the fact that elitemen were the ones who paid all the big bucks.

So cash played the MOST important role in Mohanbhai's career, more than his thoughts and strategy. This convinces me that Mohanbhai must have been cash-aware all the time. So every time he spoke or wrote, he must have thought 10 times what impact it would cause on his cash flow. Hence Mohanbhai must have compromised us commons' interested 10s of times, if at all they went against his sources' demands.

-------

brihaspati wrote:.... but I deeply admire and respect him [Mohanbhai] at the same time for his fearlessness and determination. We cannot start on our path forward without giving respect and acknowledgement where it is due. Some of those qualities are sadly missed in our leaders.

A leader who means what he/she says, and is ready even to face off his own followers over a point of principle, wiiling to sacrifice popularity and material or even electoral success, will win the hearts of the Indian "commons". I have seen this at work in the first person, and therefore know that it will work. It is not an abstract theoretical claim, but based on direct personal experience.

We often believe that Mohanbhai was good at analyzing public mood and acting on it. Well, in 1930, every Indian wanted Mohanbhai to save Bhagatji. Then why did Mohanbhai kept a thundering silence? IOW, Mohanbhai surely did not always accept what commons wanted. He did have some other priorities.

One may find leader who goes against his followers. In fact, we see that too often. (eg LKA saying good things about Jinha even against the wish of his followers in BJP, VHP and RSS). But would we ever see a leader who says against the interests of his sponsors? Would the leader face-off his sponsors? Over 99% leaders wont. eg would we ever see any of the existing MPs demand wealth tax and inheritance tax to fund Military? I bet we wont, as elitemen dont want such tax. Which is why -- a follower should always pick a leader who has no sponsors except the followers A follower who supports a leader with heavy duty sponsors will in the end get betrayed big time, when the sponsors decide to encash their investments. So it time, we the followers decide to show restraint, not get carried away by leaders who can put a show with sponsor's money and instead look for leaders who have chosen not to approach the sponsors.

IOW, it is not just Mohanbhai who erred. The bigger folly was of Mohanvaadies aka Gandhivaadies. The Mohanvaadies should have seen that Mohanbhai is taking cash from Birla and Bajaj, and Britishers are approving it. So Mohanvaadies should have dumped Mohanbhai ASAP. And when Mohanbhai refused to lobby for Bhagatji, Mohanvaadies should have dumped Mohanbhai next day. When Mohanbhai opposed Subhashji despite his winning elections, they should dumped Mohanbhai next minute. But Mohanvaadies got carried away by the fact that Mohanbhai is "successful", and so lets ignore "ethics". For all the follies of Mohanbhai, I blame Mohanvaadies about 67% and I blame Mohanbhai only 33%. Blaming Mohanbhai alone is erroneous.