Schrodinger’s cat- the classic thought experiment in Physics about indeterminacy of cat being alive or dead is being played out in reality in Indian intellectual space on everyday level and the mental gymnastics displayed by some of the so called public intellectuals is of such Olympic quality that one is confused whether they are really intellectuals or not. If Indian gymnasts had shown this flexibility instead of these intellectuals, India would have definitely topped the Olympics table.
The problem is that there are far more Nehruvian and Marxist zombies masquerading as intellectuals than there are real intellectuals. For every true intellectual, the media clique has manufactured many more fake intellectuals to serve their own goals. For eg. Rana Ayub and her other media friends are hardly intellectual but they are part of a well oiled oligarchic ecosystem which ‘real intellectuals’ are beneficiaries of.
People have been consciously reticent to name names when it comes to Islamic terrorism, in a country which has been so severely plagued by it but one Dadri happens and it doesn’t take time for terms like Hindu Taliban to fly off from Marxist pie-holes while the ‘intellectual’ jury is still out on whether using the term Muslim Taliban is appropriate or not.
The scarcity of intellectuals on the left has reached to such glorious level that they now have to borrow fascist Advani to make arguments in defence of the cottage industry of Marxist liberalism in India.
If you aren’t convinced that the intellectual class of India has been a dishonest lot, if not incompetent, you only need to contemplate why, despite it having been explicitly mentioned in the constitution that the nation shall strive for national integration and a uniform civil code, not a single intellectual in the history of India has spoken up for its implementation?
The fact is that people have figured out that the holy grail of intellectualism in India is to abuse the majority community since it is the non-violent of the lot, and win laurels for themselves.
If a billion Hindus have learnt to cultivate the thick skin to digest labels like Hindu Taliban for something they were not culpable for, in the interest of FoE, isn’t it damning that these self-professed Marxist intellectuals who wear FoE on their sleeves can’t grow out of their persecution complex and learn to take some well deserved criticism?
सदियों की ठंढी-बुझी राख सुगबुगा उठी, मिट्टी सोने का ताज पहन इठलाती है; दो राह,समय के रथ का घर्घर-नाद सुनो, सिंहासन खाली करो कि जनता आती है।
Bangladesh is and has always been a violent state. But suddenly the daylight beheadings in Bangladesh are making international news. The world did not bat an eyelid when in 1971 millions of Hindus were raped and murdered but now stray incidents of Islamic barbarity are making big headline news across the world.
The article asks why international media suddenly began emphasizing attacks on minorities and activists in Bangladesh.
It argues that the sequence of attacks on foreigners, priests, Buddhists, Hindus and gay activists was either planned or highlighted to produce maximum international outrage.
It speculates that Western governments and intelligence agencies were trying to create an ISIS narrative that could justify an Arab Spring-style colour revolution against Sheikh Hasina.
The article refers to a dossier allegedly given by Narendra Modi to Hasina warning that a large western country was attempting to destabilize Bangladesh.
It further argues that the killing of a gay-rights activist was particularly useful for mobilizing a western audience, because gay-rights narratives have far greater political salience in the West than in much of Asia.
The article concludes that instability in Bangladesh would harm Indian security by forcing India to divert intelligence and military resources toward its eastern border.
Disclaimer: This is a work of fan fiction. Hence all characters in this story belong to @blog_supplement and not to me. The stories are all meant to be in humour and not to offend anyone.
Part 2
Vidrum tried to keep up with Somakhya who was running towards Lootika’s house like his life depended on it.
“Now come on Somakhya I understand that this situation might not seem very nice for you,” began Vidrum. “But think about it in a more positive light. Lootika’s impressive physical beauty plus Meghana’s awesome trendy personality would make the absolute wonder woman. You will not be able to resist her. Trust me.”
Somakhya stopped and shook Vidrum and screamed, “No!!!!!”
Somakhya then said, “Vrishchika, Varoli and Jhileeka have all gone to their grandparents house last week and still haven’t come back. That means only Lootika and her parents might be home. I hope her parents didn’t get a heart attack seeing her new avatar. They dote on her a lot.”
They continued to reach the familiar street where Lootika lived which was not too far from Somakhya’s house. They paused when they reached her house and out of habit they tidied their hair and clothes and chewed on some mint as their mothers always told them to do before entering a girl’s house. They knocked on the door and after a few moments it was opened by Lootika. They saw that Meghana was standing right behind her. Somakhya noticed that Lootika looked different in many ways. She had removed her tilaka completely and had some Arabic mehendi on her hands. Her usual intellectual woman demeanour had been replaced with an arrogant Bollywood diva demeanour.
Lootika looked at them and said, “Oh look Meghana, just when we were enjoying our time together these sexually frustrated Hindu males had to turn up. Oh my god this country is just too patriarchal that secular sisters can’t even have some alone time to talk without some Hindu male pig barging in the middle. Well that gives me an idea of a new bashtag I can make on Bitter – #NoTimeForWomen. Yes that should get me a lot of re-beets for sure.”
“Looks like it happened,” Vidrum whispered to Somakhya.
Lootika sighed and went to the kitchen while Vidrum went to Meghana. Vidrum asked Meghana, “What happened to her and why did you come over?”
Meghana’s eyes were sparkling. “She became awesome that’s what happened. She is no longer the fascist she was before and I’ve changed my mind about her. She invited me over since her parents have gone out.”
Vidrum looked at Somakhya. Somakhya shrugged and said, “Well at least she hasn’t kicked us out now. Let’s stay and see if I can think of a cure. I remember Lootika telling me about a cure for it when we discovered this but I forgot and I doubt she is in a state to tell me now. First I’ll call Lootika’s parents to tell them not to get too alarmed about this situation.”
Somakhya went outside to make the call and Lootika called Meghana to come over to her room to continue talking.
Meghana told Vidrum, “I suppose you guys can come too. We have some snacks.”
Somakhya came back in and they went to Lootika’s room. Lootika was smoking a cigarette and she beckoned Meghana to sit on the beanie bag next to her. Meghana grabbed a bag of chips and sat down while Somakhya and Vidrum decided to stand near them and lean on the wall instead. Lootika started smoking a cigarette and said, “Well Meghana tell me about how it is in the feminist club. I’m being invited to their weekly general meetings starting this week. I just wanted to know if there are some snooty bitches there that I might need to compete with in being secular. Not that they can ever match me of course.”
Meghana almost choked on her chips. “You got invited to the general meetings?”
“Yes of course,” said Lootika. “I called them just before you came and asked them why the hell they didn’t let an uber feminist like me join the feminist club. That too when I have 10k followers on Bitter. At first when they heard my name for some odd reason they got vehemently angry with me but after conversing with me for some time and reading my new beets on Bitter they changed their mind. They said based on my performance and behaviour in the weekly general meetings they would allow me to join the weekly ‘liberation from the Hindu phallus’ meetings that are conducted every Friday just before the bolly femina night party.”
Now Meghana was really choking on her chips. “The weekly ‘liberation from the Hindu phallus’ meetings?? You got promised to get into that? Those are the most prestigious of all the feminist club meetings. Only the uber female elites are allowed in there. Getting free admission into them is no less than getting free admission into Harvard.”
“It’s all in a day’s work for me. Otherwise my name wouldn’t be Lootika, would it? Yes, I aim high always. Next I’m going to climb the feminist ladder and reach the top. Along the way of course I’m going to get a marunmatta bf, anyway not like that needs any effort on my part. But I would prefer him to be of Arab blood because I like high quality.”
Meghana threw her chips bag away and looked a little upset. “Screw that I’m just going to become fat if I eat those! I want an Arab blood guy too after all!”
“But Meghana,” began Vidrum.
“Shut up I’m in a bad mood,” she said. “Anyway this is sister time so don’t talk.”
Lootika opened a bottle of scotch next to her and the cork flew into Vidrum’s face. Lootika turned to Meghana and said, “Oh yeah I forgot to tell you something really trivial that happened to me. Some boy from university named Abdul Khan called me before you came in and asked me if I was willing to go out with him to the Bollywood bar tomorrow night. I told him look dude I sympathize with minority males a lot but I really don’t know you and perhaps you are not at my league so I’ll have to think about it.”
This time Meghana couldn’t control herself and shouted, “What the fuck! Abdul Khan is the most uber handsome alpha marunmatta we ever knew other than the Bollywood Khans! You are thinking about whether you should go with him or not?”
“You want me to tell him to go out with you instead?” asked Lootika. “Because I’m totally fine with that. I’m sure an Arab prince will come to take me out sooner or later if this fascist country allows him to come here.”
“No thanks, Miss privileged!” shouted Meghana sobbing. “He asked you out not me. What an entitled bitch you are! I never even got invited to any feminist meetings ever before. They only allowed me to edit the articles. And Abdul Khan never ever wanted anything from me other than a strand of my hair.”
Meghana ran out of the house sobbing.
“Well that escalated quickly,” Vidrum whispered to Somakhya. “Lootika and Meghana can’t get along even if Lootika is secular. What a wonder.”
“What a jealous bitch she is,” observed Lootika. “So this is the quality of feminists they produce these days. Tsk tsk. I have to correct things when I come into power. Secularism first, jealous later. That should be the slogan.”
Lootika then turned to Vidrum and Somakhya and crossed her arms and said, “Well what do you two Hindu lechers want from me?”
Vidrum swept his hair back and said, “But sweetheart can’t you see I’m secular?”
Lootika shrugged. “Still an unattractive Indian male.”
“Well?” Lootika said turning to Somakhya.
Somakhya didn’t respond to her. He didn’t feel the need to. Besides she seemed more like an alien to him now rather than the Lootika he knew all these years. Sure, her looks were still the same but as he told himself one must not get overly attached to the charms of a woman lest they be burdened with too much misery. Just as the wise Buddha had said every perceived joy in this world is ephemeral and the Lootika today might not be the Lootika tomorrow.
Vidrum elbowed him and said, “Come on quit thinking so seriously. This is a parody, not MT’s blog. And to top it all it is never recorded that the wise Buddha never said anything like the Lootika today might not be the Lootika tomorrow.”
“Yes,” said Somakhya. “That line is going to be my copyrighted teaching when I renounce the worldly life. Anyway we have nothing to gain over here now. Its getting late so let’s go to my house and rack our brains to see if we can find a cure.”
To be continued…
The author uses Twitter handle @arunbeeta
Originally published April 25, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan.
Disclaimer: This is a work of fan fiction. Hence all characters in this story belong to @blog_supplement and not to me. The stories are all meant to be in humour and not to offend anyone.
Part 1
It was the start of the summer holidays before Lootika and Somakhya’s fourth year at MT university and Vidrum and Somakhya were sitting in the cricket field near their house chatting. Lootika had been with them for a while before they came to the field as they had gone together to the great MT shrine near the university to pay their respects. Vidrum had asked Lootika (much to Somakhya’s ire) whether she would be interested in staying in the field along with them so that she could do some cheer leading for them and added that Somakhya might enjoy it very much. She declined and said that she had to go to her house so Somakhya and Vidrum ended up sitting on the field ground for a while after they had finished a little practice for the big match at the university.
“The big match is going to be amazing,” commented Vidrum. “This is probably the first time everyone is taking it very seriously.”
“And they should,” said Somakhya. “Did you take a look at the team makeup? All the marunmattas are on the opposite team while all the hindus and secular hindus are on our team. This is analogous to India vs Pakistan. Especially since there are a lot of secular Islamophile moles in our team begging us not to stress ourselves out for the match and saying things like not having any girls in our team clearly shows our patriarchal nature despite the fact that this is supposed to be an all-male team and our opponents would never have any girls even if it wasn’t.”
“Oh please,” said Vidrum waving his hand. “You always think of everything in terms of marunmattas and pretas and all. Sit back and relax and enjoy the classic Indian entertainments – things like cricket, bollywood, samosas, fair-skinned Punjabi women and all.”
“We have to be a little serious about our country and our future,” chided Somakhya. “Just last week Lootika and I received a small reward from our esteemed security adviser Ajit Goval for our little contribution to his operation in the Sunderbans. We automatically gained a lot of followers on Bitter rather than those one or two bot followers we had previously. Lootika now has 10k followers on Bitter and PM Moody even promised us that he will follow both our handles for our insights but he has not done so till now.”
“Wow!” said Vidrum. “But wait, how many followers do you have now?”
Somakhya looked a little taken aback. “Well…. just 300 now. I suspect it has something to do with the differences between Lootika’s BP (twist on DP 🙂 ) and mine. Especially when a lot of secular and marunmatta guys seem to follow her and not me, one would guess it is because of something more than the content of her beets.”
“I am not on Bitter,” said Vidrum stroking his chin. “Meghana persuaded me not to join because she was complaining that there were too many Findus on it and she said they are always bitter about something.”
Suddenly Vidrum and Somakhya noticed that Lootika had left her water bottle with them. Vidrum picked it up and some water spilled out onto the grass. Somakhya’s eye widened as she saw the grass glisten and turn slightly white in colour where the water had fallen.
“That looks really familiar and ominous,” said Somakhya pointing to it. “Come, we have to go to the lab immediately. Get that water bottle along with you!”
Vidrum didn’t understand much but he ran along with Somakhya to the university. On the way they ran into Sharvamanyu who was just on his way back home.
“Hey Somakhya!” he called out.
“I do not have much time now,” insisted Somakhya. “Tell me some other time Sharvamanyu.”
“But this is really important,” said Sharvamanyu. “I saw that uber marunmatta guy Abdul Khan snooping around your third year chemistry lab this morning while all of you were busy in class. He seemed to be very interested in checking yours and Lootika’s samples and work. I think he must have gotten access to the lab from your brain-in-the-mud secular classmate Vishal.”
“Thanks for the info,” said Somakhya and continued to drag Vidrum along with him to the university gate.
“Abdul Khan?” said Vidrum suddenly. “I know him partly because Meghana always speaks about him. He is the son of a very rich businessman and president of the Sickular Students Union as well as the president of the Oppressed Minorities of MT University Sympathy and Charity Club on our campus. He is also the de facto head of the Bollywood club on campus but actually he makes some secular Hindu guy karan kohar do all the organizational work in it while he just goes once in a while to pose on stage and bang the chicks later. He was rated as most sexy and progressive man by the weekly MT university feminist magazine and received similar praise and approval from the LGBT on campus club. Incidentally he is also the head of our opponent team in the big match even though he can’t play cricket.”
“Seems like a complete asshole to me,” said Somakhya.
“Well actually that’s not how Meghana described him much to my dismay,” said Vidrum sighing.
“Either way if he was snooping around our lab it can only mean trouble. The esteemed founders of our university would be quite upset to see the state of it today with all the secular preta-influenced and marunmatta clubs and societies in our campus.”
Somakhya and Vidrum entered the lab with their access card and Somakhya took the water bottle and began analysing its contents with her microscope. Vidrum took a seat next to him and casually looked at a MT uni-feminist magazine that someone left on the table. One article in the middle of it read “Don’t be fooled! Women can be misogynists too!” The article went on to describe a third year biology major student named Lootika who had a fascist handle on Bitter and had notoriously gained popularity recently. It described her as an evil witch that was certainly a curse on womankind. The article also mentioned while they could not make much sense out of her obscure, complicated beets what they could tell was that she was a fascist and that the most blasphemous thing about her was that she did not think Bollywood was cool. The writers of the article ended saying that they noticed the fact that some secular guys who had proclaimed themselves as lovers of feminists had decided to follow her handle and if they do not immediately stop taking interest in Lootika then they would face the full consequences of feminist rage. Vidrum flipped to the next page and saw that the next article was about how men should control their rage and not be curious to find out who a woman is following on Bitter.
“Aha! I guessed correctly!” Said Somakhya suddenly. “The water in Lootika’s bottle has Buckminister-phosphate-guanocytosine-looti-meghite mixed into it!”
“What? What! What?!!” Said Vidrum.
“Come on its not that complicated, its just Buckminister-phosphate-guanocytosine-looti-meghite,” said Somakhya with a shrug. “Oh I see. You don’t know about it because Lootika and I dropped the idea of publishing a research article on it because the idea is trivial and also would lack funding. Basically its a simple chemical we discovered that tastes exactly like water but can be used to transform a Lootika into a Meghana. One of our most peculiar discoveries.”
“Oh how is it made?” asked Vidrum trying to stop the throbbing in his head.
“Well first you take a strand of hair from both Lootika and Meghana and tie them together and then place them in a solution of MT liquid. Then you go to the shrine of the god Bollocks who is the arch enemy of our patron devta MT and do puja with the solution with 15 minutes. And voila, its done!”
“So obviously the guy Abdul must have done all of this,” said Vidrum. “He actually did puja in front of an idol. Without doubt he destroyed it after he was done. It doesn’t matter. I never liked Bollocks anyway.”
Vidrum scratched his chin. “But one thing I am worried about is how did he manage to get a strand of Meghana’s hair?”
“Oh that is nothing surprising or new I am sure,” said Somakhya. “What I am really concerned about is how he managed to get a strand of Lootika’s hair!”
Vidrum gave her a dirty look. Suddenly Somakhya’s eyes widened. “By our good god MT! It must have already taken effect on Lootika by now. She did drink a little of the water. Undoubtedly this whole scheme was an attack by the Ghazis to weaken Hindus! Come, we have to go to her house immediately.”
Editorial illustration for “Why Bollywood should be banned for the good of the nation”.
This is our second article in the series on Bollywood and we find Bollywood fails on almost all standards and is unworthy for the title of national movie industry. It is actually a burden on Indian society and should be either banned or placed under severe censorship for the good of this country. Let’s explore why.
Bollywood glorifies anti-nationals and trashes armed forces
Bollywood has not done any justice to the sacrifices made by our armed forces as it has hardly produced any worthwhile movie to celebrate our veterans. Compare that with how Hollywood — although infiltrated by hardcore leftist Americans — treats their army and war veterans. Hollywood always portrays the wars their government fights as morally right and heroic, even in cases where their government and army has no moral standing to fight like Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam. Compare the number of films Hollywood has made on Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam with the number of films Bollywood has made on the 1948, 1965, 1971 or 1999 India-Pakistan wars. This is despite the fact that the Indian army was the defender and used war as a last resort and had the moral high ground. In fact these anti-nationals — who have no problem completely ignoring the rape and genocide of 1 million Hindus in Bangladesh by the Pakistani army before India intervened in 1971 — are too busy vilifying the armed forces which are facing freezing cold in Siachen and blazing sun in Rajasthan just so that these ungrateful Bollywood anti-nationals can enjoy their self-hatred in comfortable AC rooms and produce movies like Haider where they glorify Jihadists in Kashmir.
Bollywood peddles self-hatred
Art and culture is supposed to show off what is great about our culture and be an inspiration for the masses, but Bollywood does the exact opposite. While movies in the west are busy portraying how their societies are the best in the world — even though they have dysfunctional families, divorce rates and rape rates 20–30 times that of India — all Bollywood can do is perpetuate the stereotype of backward and poor India as perpetuated by the colonialists. Of course, movies made by brainwashed sepoys who are more than happy to be coolies of the west and Islamists could not be expected to produce anything inspirational about India or Indian society. Even their supposedly inspirational films have nothing but scorn and disgust towards Indian society, indicating the self-hatred these people have for Indians. In short, Bollywood is not run by Indians but by a bunch of de-racinated brown-skinned colonialists who have completely internalized the colonial mindset of the imperialists. While western media and films use their films as an instrument to spread their culture, Bollywood uses its status to destroy ours. For example, instead of explaining the values behind Hinduism, Aamir Khan used PK to outright peddle the agenda of monotheistic religions.
Bollywood and its connection to the underworld
It is sad that what is almost an open secret is not being discussed enough in the Indian political scene today — the control Dawood Ibrahim and his underground Islamist goons in Mumbai have had over Bollywood. Many of the Bollywood Khans are known to have houses in Dubai and attend the private parties of Dawood Ibrahim. Is it any surprise that Bollywood acts as a Trojan horse for bringing Urdu into Hindi language and the destruction of indigenous languages like Bhojpuri, Awadhi etc.? And the black money of Dawood Ibrahim is laundered in large part through Bollywood.
Another fallout of this underworld money is that instead of patronising Indian talent and artists, Bollywood finances more Trojan horses from Pakistan in the name of cultural enrichment. Also they have no shame in asking for more engagement and increasing people-to-people contacts while the barbaric army of Pakistan is engaged in killing our soldiers on the border. Not just that — many of them are also fronts for ISI propaganda against India. Why else would they produce films like Haider? Why do you think a country with 80% Hindus has to bear three mediocre Khans as top actors for two decades?
Destructive influence of Bollywood on culture
This is by far the worst aspect of Bollywood. Rather than produce moralistic films which can potentially guide society on a moral path, Bollywood instead produces crass and amoral films which glorify single womanhood, divorces, one night stands, pub culture and alcoholism. Rather than learning from the mistakes done by western society in the name of dating, one night stands, pub culture and divorces, Bollywood is on overdrive to bring the same degenerative culture of the west here.
By glorifying one night stands, breakdown of marriages and discarding the sanctity of traditions, Bollywood wants to create a sexual liberalism here same as in the west. While in theory it sounds great for the young and hot-blooded, in the long run it will cause nothing but disaster. Sex is an important thing in life but so are families, kids and love. By glorifying sex and breakup of marriages, Bollywood wants our women and men to be as individualistic and narcissistic as they themselves are — which will ultimately lead to unhappiness and turn India into a country of favelas. The same men and women who are sexually “liberated” in the west are also the most frustrated, lonely and depression-pill-popping people in the world.
Of course the likes of Karan Johar in Bollywood, being the crorepatis they are, just want to have sex and need a steady supply of partners. What better way to convince themselves that meaningless sex is good for them than glorify it in their movies? What they of course don’t show is that the end result of any such liberalism is abandoned kids and single mothers like in the west.
What’s worse, the few films which do show marriage nowadays also spare no time to mock and ridicule the big and joint families of our culture and prefer to promote nuclear families — an invention of the Christians. Joint families provide stability to marriages and grandparents are usually a very good moral pillar and support for kids in the family. By glorifying nuclear families over joint families, they make sure that grandparents’ love doesn’t reach the child and the grandparents live miserably and alone. Is it any wonder that without grandparents to oversee the children, kids these days are far more prone to self-destruction with drugs?
Finally, the most worrying part is that Bollywood portrays alcohol as great and is even pushing women to become alcoholics. There was a time when alcohol was considered a massively negative social trait worthy of losers who failed in life. Compare that with its glorification in Bollywood today through shots culture. No surprise that alcoholism is on the rise in today’s society. The biggest losers in this game are low and middle income families for whom any money wasted on alcohol is money their families don’t have for basic expenses like clothing, food and education.
Bollywood is not even artistic
Perhaps one would say, Bollywood creates art and one should not be over-critical of its work. But most Bollywood movies are blindly copied from the west or South India and are almost always of pathetic quality. It has no identity of its own today other than being a Hindi/Urdu-speaking version of Hollywood or South Indian movies. Then why does anyone need Bollywood when they can watch the originals which are more interesting than cheap rip-offs? Also unlike South Indian movies — which sell South Indian culture and retain their uniqueness and glorification of traditions — Bollywood again disappoints by desperately trying to be a brown-skinned version of Uncle Tom. So its existence cannot be justified even on the basis of artistic expression or creativity.
Conclusion
If Hindus want to fix their country and society and prevent the rot the western countries are going through, and to prevent further de-racination of the country’s young and next generation, they should ask themselves if the few hours of escapism they get from Bollywood is worth the rust which comes with it. If Dharma has any chance to prevail in our society, Bollywood needs to be banned or fully cleansed of its current rodents.
May 2014 was the time when Hindus thought that their time had finally come when they gave an overwhelming majority to BJP in Lok Sabha elections. Sadly the dream did not last for too long as it is already two years since the LS elections but there is hardly anything concrete on the ground which can be used to say that BJP has worked on a pro-Hindu agenda. Yes, it is not anti-Hindu like Congress but it has hardly shown any respect to the genuine Hindu agenda. RTE is still hounding Hindu schools, temple money is still looted by the government, and on top of that NGOs and courts are mounting a direct assault on local Hindu traditions like Jallikattu, the Shani temple or Sabarimala. We hear noises about students shouting anti-national slogans in JNU but none of the ring masters got sacked nor any changes made to history books. On top of that Smriti Irani boasts it as her achievement that she has not yet touched the books circulated by the UPA government.
What makes it worse is the meek behaviour of BJP which does not think even once before abandoning its real Hindu followers. It has started to think that it was the development plank which made it win the last elections and it will make it win again in the future. Seems like BJP is hell bent on following the course it charted during the 2004 elections by projecting “India Shining” and getting dumped by the voters. So not only has BJP distanced itself from supporters like Kamlesh Tiwari in the real world, but it also frequently disowns its social media followers.
The reason that core Hindus find themselves in this position is because BJP knows that these supporters have no outside option other than BJP. All other options like electing Congress are not only anti-Hindu but are also much more disastrous to the economy. So BJP thinks it has a captive vote base as hardcore Hindus have nowhere else to go. Also, since BJP still follows the left-dominated liberal agenda once the elections are over, these Hindus are increasingly seen as a liability rather than an asset. This explains why career politicians don’t think twice before abusing them.
So, what is the way out? Core Hindus cannot let BJP walk around and renege on all the election promises. Thankfully Game Theory comes to our rescue. Dharmics need to use the “Stick and Carrot” principle from Game Theory to discipline BJP’s behaviour. In simple words — how does the Stick and Carrot principle work? Imagine you are the manager and have to ensure that the interests of your employees are aligned with your goals. The simple way to ensure this is to reward them for good behaviour (carrot) while punishing them for bad behaviour (stick). Sticking to just rewards or punishment alone will not ensure good behaviour.
In BJP’s case, electoral wins serve as the carrot but there is no stick to punish them when they deviate from ideal behaviour. This means Hindus need to act strategically and develop a stick to beat BJP into submission so that it implements their agenda. BJP thinks that its Hindu voters are captive and have no other choice and hence can take their support for granted. This needs to change and Hindus need to punish BJP for bad behaviour. The carrot is more than evident — the 2019 LS elections. But what should be this punishment or stick?
Core strategy:
Punish BJP for all deviations from the Hindu agenda by defeating them in all local body elections (like panchayat and municipality) till 2019 to send a message to their local leaders. This will generate feedback from the ground that BJP cannot take Hindus for granted. Small BJP leaders get benefit from local elections and so local elections matter a lot to them. Also, they need to be motivated for campaigning in big elections so top BJP leaders need to keep them in good humour. So, if you defeat these foot soldiers it will send a direct message to the high command in BJP that Hindus are not stupid. Don’t select Congress or AAP — go for good local candidates.
Let BJP win state elections so that it does not have the excuse of no majority in Rajya Sabha. Although this is a bad excuse — because like Congress, BJP too could have used CBI to implement its agenda — since BJP fanboys almost always cite this reason for BJP’s inaction it is essential to give them a chance to have majority in RS. Although it is most likely BJP would do nothing even with RS majority given how it has kept quiet on all core Hindu issues. Temple control and RTE are not even anti-minority issues to be shot down in RS if BJP plays its cards well. In any case, give them one chance to prove themselves.
Defeat high-profile traitors like Jaitley, Fadnavis etc. in state as well as national elections. There should be zero tolerance for high-profile sell-outs. Make sure that Dev Fadnavis is destroyed for his weak-kneed response on the Shani temple issue. Shivraj should be defeated for selling out Hindus on the Bhojshala issue. Similar punishment should be meted out to Jumla Rajnath and Jumla Irani for their inaction. Let local parties like Shiv Sena and other pro-Hindu parties win on seats against these big shots to send a clear message that Hindus have zero tolerance for deviation. Also ensure that hardcore Hindus like Uma Bharti and Yogi Adityanath are elected with thumping majorities to send an even clearer message.
Also, economic right is still a minuscule fraction of BJP supporters as most of its supporters are actually core Dharmics. So core Dharmics have all the shots to call. Punishing local BJP leaders in local elections will not dampen efforts to implement pro-Hindu policies at the top either. So this game is for Hindus to win. It is about time Hindus stopped complaining about democracy and started using democracy to their advantage.
Sticking to the above strategy will give Hindus a say in the formation of policies post elections and keep the top BJP leaders on a tight leash. They should be given the choice between perform or perish. If 15% Muslims can enforce their agenda and make politicians dance to their tunes, there is no reason that Hindus can’t do it if they are strategic. And if Hindus stick to this carrot and stick approach, even if BJP doesn’t deliver for core Hindus then some other party will rise to fulfil their political agenda in the future.
The year was 2001 and two movies were fighting against each other for setting the industry on fire — Gadar: Ek Prem Katha vs Lagaan. At the end of the day Gadar starring Sunny Deol beat Aamir’s Lagaan hands down in box-office profits as Gadar smashed all the records of that time and sold more tickets than all other movies except Sholay in the history of Indian cinema. Sunny Deol’s macho performance against barbaric Pakistanis probably sealed the deal in Gadar’s favour as the Indian audience preferred it over Aamir Khan’s character of slow cricketer in Lagaan.
The success of Gadar should have given the Indian movie industry a good template to generate profits by kicking the ass of Pakistanis — which they more than deserve and which has historically been proved in all wars post-independence. But this template has hardly been used post-Gadar as Bollywood is more than happy importing Pakistani artists and doing “Aman ka Tamasha”. This sell-out of Bollywood essentially means that they have chosen to close their eyes to all Indian achievements in the past 70 years. Not only have they ignored the past 70 years but there are hardly any movies on our freedom struggle. Given this utter neglect of our history, it hardly surprises that students in JNU can get brainwashed and chant “Bharat ki barbadi tak” slogans, thus disrespecting the spirit of our forefathers who laid their lives for our better future.
Why has Bollywood — which always wants to portray itself as national cinema and ignore local industry — failed to represent this nation of 1.2 billion people? Why is it impossible for it to produce anything which reflects Indian cultural and military superiority? Bollywood is more than happy to copy Hollywood trash, but why does it not learn from it and produce movies to respect our war veterans? It is hard to imagine that Indians would not cherish watching another movie like “Border” based on historical events and stories. Sadly, Bollywood prefers to glorify Jihadis in movies like Haider and act as a fifth column of ISI in creating propaganda against the Indian state.
1. Indo-Pak war (1971)
It is surprising that Indians have failed so miserably to cover this glorious display of courage and capability of the Indian Armed Forces. It broke the back of Pakistan completely and forced it to abandon the idea of direct military confrontation against India. Let’s look at the themes one can explore on this war.
Genocide of Bangladeshi Hindus: If Schindler’s List can be used by Jews for propaganda, no better way to project the plight of Hindus during this war. A movie on this genocide will completely tar Pakistani reputation forever and represent them for what they are — barbarians.
International power play: This war was fought under great international pressure where Indira Gandhi was called bad names by Americans for her courage. Not only did India superbly manage international pressure, it managed to create Bangladesh overcoming all these odds. Is there a better way to portray “Nari Shakti” of India when the US is still struggling to elect a female President?
War theatre: This is such a rich topic to explore. The Indian Army achieved its objectives in such a short period of time and captured 90,000 POW that it is a tragedy that no one ever tried to put it on the silver screen. Operation Trident by the Indian Navy — where they destroyed the Karachi harbour and caused massive damage to Pakistan’s capability — would make such an amazing thriller.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
2. Indo-Pak war (1965)
This was another glorious war effort by Indian soldiers. In the aftermath of defeat against the Chinese in 1962, this war was a huge adrenaline boost for a poor and lost country trying to rediscover its strength.
Genius of PM Shastri: Pakistanis always thought that India is a country of banias ruled by a nobody called Shastri. But Lal Bahadur Shastri showed his true mettle and proved his name Bahadur beyond doubt when he gave orders to march into Punjab to ease pressure on J&K. His death in Tashkent would make another great story and debate to explore.
Battle of Asal Uttar: This was the battle of battles in this war where Indians won by sheer courage and tactics against a much better armed enemy. It was the biggest tank battle post World War 2 — Indians were not only outnumbered but also had old Centurion tanks from WW2, while Pakistan marched with the new Patton tanks supplied by the US. This battle settled the debate once and for all as Pakistan never regained its confidence after it.
3. Kargil war (1999)
This was the first war where Indians saw some action directly broadcast on their TV sets at home. A few movies were made in the immediate aftermath of this war but since then everyone has forgotten it.
Lahore bus backstab: PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee went with huge fanfare to Lahore on a bus to create permanent peace between two hostile nations. What did he get in return? He got backstabbed by General Musharraf who planned the Kargil war while Vajpayee was eating biryani with Nawaz Sharif. This story needs to be told again and again to hammer the lesson into Indian heads — Don’t trust Pakistan!
Mountain warfare: Which other country can boast that they wrestled back peaks at more than 5,000 m by sheer bravery and love for the nation? We would all like to hear the story of Captain Vikram Batra — the “ye dil maange more” guy — on the big screen.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
4. Siachen Glacier
When we are talking about mountain warfare, how can we forget about the Siachen Glacier? Ask any mountaineer about their love for mountains and whether they would like to visit the largest glacier in the world called Siachen — you would not hear a single No. But ask our soldiers who live there night and day and they will explain that it is not a pleasant experience in any way. So why do they live there? For the strength and glory of India!
The history: Learn about the great spy games on how this area became disputed when Indians discovered that Pakistanis were buying low-temperature clothing and boots in large numbers on western markets in 1987 and decided to outsmart them to capture the highest ridges on the glacier.
Operation Rajiv: One can only imagine the nail-biting fight of our soldiers under freezing cold conditions. Isn’t it surprising that no one has tried to make a movie on Param Vir Chakra winner, the legendary Bana Singh, who captured the highest post (6,447 m) on this glacier — later renamed Bana Top in his honour?
War against nature: Indian soldiers hardly care for the weak Pakistanis any more on this glacier. Their biggest enemy is the freezing cold and uncertainty of the glacier. We want to hear their true stories and feel proud of our soldiers of steel.
5. Indo-China war (1962)
Great nations not only remember their success stories — what sets them apart is their appetite to hear about their failures. This war which India lost due to the follies of its leaders should serve as a reminder again and again.
Nehru’s blunders: How India and China went from being best buddies chanting “Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai” to the worst of enemies should be a classic textbook story to tell our kids. The role of Nehru and V.K. Krishna Menon in ensuring India’s defeat should be looked at from a fresh perspective.
Brave hearts: This was one war where our soldiers were heavily outnumbered as well as under-equipped. But what a fight they put against all such odds. PVC winner Major Shaitan Singh still lives among the memories of soldiers serving around the Chushul area. Old Bollywood did much better in waking up the spirit of a defeated nation by producing “Haqeeqat”.
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
Just reading this piece will fill you up with emotions for our brave soldiers, so you can easily imagine what movies on the above mentioned topics can do for the nation. Also, there is no better way to pay homage to our dead soldiers by celebrating and remembering them through popular culture. You too will hate Bollywood now for failing to give Indians a chance to celebrate their unity and courage. But this cannot go on forever and we need to make our voices heard to bring this change in our movie industry. So trend #anti-national Bollywood to take this message further.
The post modern application of feminism looks at male-female relationships from a Western point of view and almost always disregards and disrupts the pre-existing structures in third world society. The only measure which is then left for the third world champions of feminism is to measure themselves against the standards of modernity as accorded to their western counterparts. This whole exercise is taken with blatant disregard of the fact that modern feminism practised in the west has an Abrahamic background and misses the important cultural nuances due to deep belief that there is only one right form of gender relations i.e. turning women into men. This belief is so deep that Nordic countries like Sweden are taking it to the extreme where they are erasing sex differences even in spoken and written language and evolving gender-less pronouns.
So now the question that should arise in any healthy mind is — should the world go down the Swedish way i.e. mindless adoption of erosion of male-female boundaries? If you see how Swedish women are openly embracing misogynist Muslim men from third world countries and rejecting their local men, it seems biology does not agree with this Swedish experiment. But even before answering the above question, one should ask whether third world countries accept the definition of subjugation of women by men as propounded by western feminists?
Popular culture and art in any society is the true mirror of the prevalent social practices. So, if you go back a few years before the rise of narcissistic and crass humour of AIB, India produced some great stand up comedians. One of them is Surendra Sharma who devoted his whole life to produce humour through husband and wife jokes. A common theme that runs through his entire work is to present the miserable conditions of the husband, thanks to the over-bearing nature of his wife.
Given the popularity of his acts among the middle class, it is not unwise to assume that his jokes touched a chord among the masses where everyone could relate to his act at some level. Let’s look at another example from popular comics for kids called “Chacha Chaudhary”:
Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.
There are three nuances which come out of this cartoon immediately:
Even though women were/are not working, a lot of them control household finances.
The wife can be tough and even fight with a robber.
Husband and wife regularly play jokes on each other and pull each other’s leg.
So if paid attention, one can go through a large number of similar narratives presented in the popular culture of the past. This has not been different from the lived experiences of many of us. The fact of the matter is that two generations ago, most men and women worked together both at home and in agriculture depending on their field of expertise. Most of them had tough lives but hardly any time to reflect on or cry about gender inequality. This is true even for the current generation of poor farmers, where despite great efforts of foreign NGOs and domestic feminists, women hardly show any inclination to react to post-modern feminist concepts due to their lived experiences which are orthogonal to what the feminists want them to believe. The destiny of these men and women are tied together by their social and economic circumstances to such an extent that western feminist notions will hardly achieve anything for them.
Looking back now, all of us can share stories on how these relationships played out in real society. There would hardly be any middle class person who would not remember the banter and jokes shared by their uncles and aunts about who controls the finances or who to convince for buying stuff. Many people growing up in a joint family would have had a chance to see these dynamics from much closer — where grandmothers would make most of the financial and other social decisions for the family, usually with the help of one of their sons. The grandfathers on the other hand would be more than happy to mind their business and not get involved in this day to day decision making. It is no surprise that many of these old ladies were respected not only in their own family but consulted for various matters even by distant relatives. This is not to say that there were no male-headed households, but to point out the diversity. This point is actually more nuanced as the male or female headed household can still have different spheres of influence for each spouse where they enjoy complete autonomy and domain expertise. Does it surprise you now that the middle class finds it more than difficult to swallow the atrocity literature sold by western feminists?
Yes, women had to sacrifice in a lot of cases but so did men. The power relationship between men and women was nuanced and worked at different levels, which white women would never understand due to the individualistic society they grow up in — where each individual is benchmarked against the other and where the discussions have just been confined to rights while duties have been completely forgotten. But can one establish Dharma by talking about rights while maintaining silence about duties?
Thankfully Indian women are smarter than white feminists and their sepoys because they evaluate life based on their lived experiences. Thanks to feminism the west is watching over silently as their family system is completely broken. Now imagine how India would be undone if the same toxic ideology is applied here. In the absence of social security, India would not even have the luxury to exist for a short duration post breakdown of the marriage institution. The only reason the west can still export this disruptive ideology is because it has some time before it disintegrates completely due to loss of family culture. Actually one can look at black culture in the US to predict what would befall their whole society once men-women relationships are completely broken down. The rise of post-modern feminism completely destroyed the black family system and blacks are nowhere close to the social standards that they enjoyed in the 1970s. But rather than correct the situation and bring these families together, blacks are increasingly given further overdoses of feminism, disregarding the fact that it was feminism which lies at the root of all their problems.
To counter this narrative, some Native American women have taken a lead in the US. The clarity of thoughts presented by them is astounding, when compared to the blind copycat behaviour shown by Indian feminists, who have nothing but contempt for everything traditional. Some of the arguments of these native women are well documented by @bhimakarma in his series of tweets:
Native American Civil Rights Activist Lorelei Means on how feminism is just another avenue for asserting colonialism
— bhimakarma (@bhimakarma), April 17, 2016
“We are American Indian women, in that order.” – Lorelei Means
— bhimakarma (@bhimakarma), April 17, 2016
The above quote well summarizes how this nouveau colonialism can be defeated only by realizing that men and women share the same destiny, especially under threat from western ideological constructs. Blind application and promotion of atrocity literature will only lead to further subjugation of Indian masses. The above paragraphs should be an eye opener for all Indians that both men and women were equally colonized by the British, who systematically destroyed the Indian economy and impoverished us. All attempts to create a rift between the two will only lead to recolonization of our land again.
Before we close, it is important to note why militant feminism, the way we identify it today, arose in the west. Why do white feminists want to turn their women into men? One has to look at the history of Abrahamic religions to understand this development. Since there is no equivalent female Goddess in Abrahamics and women are inferior to men in their framework, it is more than understandable why these women felt aggrieved and developed militant feminism. This also explains why they want to become men and out-compete them rather than form a mutually beneficial relationship. On the other hand, this is not the case with Hindu households or Hindu religion. For every household, both Shiva and Parvati serve as a source of inspiration on how to run the household. For every Ram, there is a Sita and Vishnu is almost always venerated alongside Lakshmi.
Yes, there are problems in Indian society but there is no reason to decouple men and women and chart a collision course for them. Militant feminism has failed in the west and has led to the doom of their families and societies — and it will fail everywhere else in the world as well. Indians should act smart by looking at the degeneration of western society and learn from their mistakes rather than burn their own fingers while trying to experiment with a failed foreign ideology which makes no sense for their culture and society. So next time you read atrocity literature, just think about how the land of feminism i.e. the US is yet to elect a female President, while India gladly elected Indira Gandhi — who slapped both Pakistan and the US in the 1971 war — as Prime Minister to lead a young country.
All civilizations in the world have been patriarchal, but none can be as loathing and dismissive towards women as Islam. It is then only possible with extreme mental gymnastics that one can even get the idea to compare other religions with Islam, stuck in the seventh century, when talking about the position of women in respective religions. The draping of women under a tablecloth called burqa should be more than enough for any sensible person to fold chips and devote an entire life to solving problems faced by women in Islam. But not if you are a cultural Marxist like Barkha Dutt, who has refined this art of mental gymnastics to bring Hindus into every discussion under the sky. Don’t be surprised if next time she links Manuwadi Hinduism with the disappearance of whales in the Pacific.
Sadly, this time on a panel discussion on women in Islam, she was slapped hard by Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she tried her usual gymnastics to divert attention from Islam by talking about misogyny in Hinduism. Here is the slap:
See the extreme contempt this sold-out brown nigger has for Hindu traditions. If one believes Barkha, then a ban on entry of women in a minuscule number of Hindu temples is equivalent to genital mutilation practised in half of the Islamic population. But in this panel discussion there were no takers for her shenanigans and she was quickly shot back down to earth when she tried to divert attention from Islam.
The fact of the matter is that even if India wholeheartedly converts to Christianity or Islam, as most Marxists in India want, they would strictly remain below white masters in the international hierarchy. This tight slap on Barkha should explain that there is no space for sold-outs like her in the world. She is just a useful pawn in the grand scheme of things for Western masters and any self-respecting person would treat her accordingly.
Respect is commanded. Hating yourself and your culture like cultural Marxists is not exactly the best way to get respect, as evidenced by this video, where Ayaan shows absolute contempt for this cultural Marxist. Maybe cultural Marxists should introspect whether being coolies without any self-respect is worth the brownie points they win from white masters.
This article is written by @Rajnikant_rkp, who has written the book Foundations of Misery: Blunders of the Nehruvian Era.
BLUNDER III
Major Blunder – III
External Security
Inexplicably Irresponsible Ideas
The seeds of India’s disgraceful debacle in 1962 India-China War were sown soon after Independence by none other than India’s first Prime Minister himself, as would be shockingly obvious from his approach to external security from the incident below.
Shortly after Independence, General Lockhart, as the Army chief (India and Pakistan had British Chiefs initially), took a strategic defence plan for India to Nehru, seeking a Government directive in the matter. Reportedly, Lockhart returned shell-shocked at Nehru’s response: “The PM took one look at my paper and blew his top. ‘Rubbish! Total rubbish! We don’t need a defence plan. Our policy is ahimsa [non-violence]. We foresee no military threats. Scrap the army! The police are good enough to meet our security needs’, shouted Nehru.”
Given such a mind-set, only God could have saved India in times of disaster. Unfortunately, God too abandoned India in 1962 War. Perhaps God was cheesed off by the “rational”, “scientific-minded”, atheist-agnostic Nehru!
The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.
— Sun Tzu, Art of War
But, what did Nehru do? Despite the “Glimpses of World History” and the “Discovery of India”, Nehru failed to discover that India suffered slavery for well over a millennium on account of its weakness to defend itself. No wonder, he neglected modernisation of the army, strengthening of defence, and pacts with powerful nations to deter enemies and ensure India’s security.
Hyderabad would have been another Kashmir/Pakistan
Had it been left to Nehru, and had it not been for Sardar Patel, Hyderabad state would have been either another Kashmir or another Pakistan.
Mountbatten, also Chairman of the Defence Committee, had recorded: “Pandit Nehru said openly at the meeting, and subsequently assured me privately, that he would not allow any orders to be given for operations to start unless there really was an event, such as a wholesale massacre of Hindus within the State, which would patently justify, in the eyes of the world, action by the Government of India.”
What would the world think? What Mountbatten thought? What about his own image? These seemed to weigh more with Nehru. Why couldn’t he also think the opposite: that the world would consider India a sissy and a fool to ignore its own national interests. But, apparently Nehru found arguments for only those courses of action where he didn’t have to take action! Or, where he could avoid decisions and difficulties.
The situation in Hyderabad was progressing towards a climax. Under Sardar’s constant pressure, and despite the opposition of Pandit Nehru and Rajaji, the decision was taken to march into Hyderabad and thereby to put an end both to the suspended animation in which the State stood and the atrocities on the local population which had become a matter of daily occurrence.
— V. Shankar, My Reminiscences of Sardar Patel, Vol. 2
…Reports circulating at the time said that even then Nehru was not in favour of marching troops into Hyderabad lest the matter be taken up by the UN… It is true that Patel chafed at the ‘do-nothing attitude of the Indian government’…
— Kuldip Nayar, Beyond the Lines
Erasure of Tibet as a Nation
Nehru allowed Tibet, our peaceful neighbour and a buffer between us and China, to be erased as a nation, without even recording a protest in the UN, thereby making our northern borders insecure, and putting a question mark on the future of the water resources that originate in Tibet.
The Tibetan Government protested to the UN against the Chinese aggression. But, as Tibet was not a member of the UN, it was simply recorded by the UN Secretariat as an appeal from an NGO. Their appeal, in a way, was pigeonholed.
In view of this handicap, Tibetans requested the Government of India to raise the Tibet issue in the UN. But, India was not willing to do so, lest China should feel antagonised! What to speak of helping our neighbour who had appealed to us for help, we shamelessly advised the victim, that is, Tibet, to seek peaceful settlement with the aggressor, China. Even worse, when through others, the Tibet’s appeal came up on 23 November 1950 for discussions in the UN General Assembly, we opposed the discussions on a very flimsy ground—that India had received a note from China that the matter would be peacefully resolved!
With no one to sponsor the Tibetan appeal, possibility of some joint action was discussed by the Commonwealth delegation to the UN. In the meeting, the Indian representative advised that India did not wish to raise the Tibetan issue in the UNSC, nor did India favour its inclusion in the UN General Assembly agenda!
See the irony: Nehru referred to the UN what India should never have referred, and he refused to refer a matter to the UN that India should certainly have referred. Nehru took the J&K issue to the UN, which he should never have, it being a purely internal matter; while Nehru refused to refer the issue of Tibet to the UN, despite its criticality to the survival of Tibet as a nation, its inherent soundness, and despite it being critical to India’s external security!
When Nehru should not have acted, he did act; and when he should have acted, he didn’t! Both, his action and his inaction, led to disastrous consequences for India. Nehru’s strategy was India’s tragedy.
During his last days in 1964, Nehru was reported to have said: “I have been betrayed by a friend. I am sorry for Tibet.” Betrayal? One does not understand. In international politics, if you are naive and are incompetent to take care of your own interests, you would keep getting betrayed.
Panchsheel — the Worst Ever International Agreement
Despite what China did to Tibet, India signed The Panchsheel Agreement with China on 29 April 1954. The agreement itself was titled “Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet region of China and India” thus acknowledging Tibet as a part of China. India gained nothing through the Agreement, and all benefits accrued to China.
India did not even insist on prior settlement of borders. Reportedly, Girija Shankar Bajpai of the External Affairs Ministry had advised on settlement of the borders prior to the signing of Panchsheel, but his suggestion was ignored.
This great doctrine was born in sin, because it was enunciated to put the seal of our approval upon the destruction of an ancient nation which was associated with us spiritually and culturally… It was a nation which wanted to live its own life and it sought to have been allowed to live its own life…
— Acharya Kripalani on Panchsheel
Upon criticism of the Panchsheel in parliament, Nehru had brazenly stated that in the realm of foreign affairs he could never take so much credit as for the India-China settlement over Tibet! An amazing assertion indeed! All agreements among nations involve give and take. Panchsheel was only a “give away” with no reciprocal “take”. Through Panchsheel India literally gave Tibet to China on a platter, without negotiating anything in return either for Tibet or for India. Panchsheel is actually a most eloquent example of the naivety of the Indian diplomacy and a shining example of what an international agreement should not be!
Not Settling India-China Boundary Dispute
Nehru failed to negotiate with China on a peaceful settlement of borders, so vital to India’s security. Doing so was not difficult considering that China at the time was not strong, had numerous other external and internal problems to contend with, and was therefore willing for a “give and take”, particularly Aksai Chin-McMahon Line swap: recognition of McMahon Line by China in return for India’s recognition of China’s claim on Aksai Chin, with minor adjustments. For over a decade (the whole of fifties and the early sixties), umpteen occasions presented themselves, both during the numerous visits of Zhou En Lai to India and the visit of Nehru to China, to settle the issue, but Nehru frittered away all the opportunities. Nehru let go even the Panchsheel moment to close the issue.
In his book, India-China Boundary Problem, 1846–1947, A.G. Noorani, a leading Constitutional expert and an advocate at the Supreme Court of India, mentions that a map annexed to the Mountbatten’s Report on his Viceroyalty labeled northern boundaries as Boundary Undefined. Map annexed to a White Paper on Indian States released in July 1948 by the Ministry of States under Sardar Patel also did not show these borders as clearly defined, unlike the McMahon Line which was clearly shown. The controversial area in this part was Aksai Chin. However, the maps were unilaterally altered after July 1954 at the instance of Nehru, and began to show a clear, demarcated border—that included Aksai Chin—as unilaterally decided by India.
…I was only the home ministry’s information officer and had no official locus standi, but it was obvious that the Polish ambassador was on a mission. He invited me for a chat at his chancery and expected me to convey what he had said to [Gobind Ballabh] Pant [Nehru’s Home Minister]. At the beginning of the conversation he said that the proposal he would make had the support of all Communist countries, and specifically mentioning the Soviet Union. His proposal was that India should accept a package political deal, getting recognition for the McMahon Line in exchange for handing over control of some areas in Ladakh [Aksai Chin] to China. He said that the areas demanded had never been charted, and nobody could say to whom they belonged. What was being claimed to be India’s was what had been forcibly occupied by the UK. No power could honour ‘the imperialist line’, nor should India insist upon it. Whatever the odds, China would never part with the control of the road it had built. That was lifeline between Sinkiang and other parts of China, he argued. I conveyed the proposal to Pant who gave me no reaction, his or that of the government.
— Kuldip Nayar, Beyond the Lines
India-China War
India and China had a record going back thousands of years for never having fought a war between them. Nehru, through his policies, broke that record, though unwillingly.
Nehru’s forward policy and his failure in settling the borders resulted in India-China war and its consequent human and financial loss. Here, we are talking of what India could control, not what China had in mind.
India began building forward check-posts under its hare-brained Forward Policy—which was actually a “bluff” masquerading as a military strategy. Their locations were as per the border unilaterally determined by India, and not as per mutual discussions with China. There was, therefore, a possibility of China’s objection, and even Chinese action to demolish the posts. The fact was that the boundaries were not settled, so what was say within Indian boundary for India, may have been within Chinese boundary for China. If you had not settled the boundaries, controversies were bound to arise. But, rather than negotiating a boundary with China and reaching a peaceful settlement, Nehru-Menon & Co in their wisdom—their Forward Policy—convinced themselves that it is they who would determine the boundary, and in token thereof, establish their posts, like markers. That China could object, and then attack and demolish those posts, and even move forward into India did not seem to them a possibility. Why? Because, reasoned Nehru: any such “reckless” action by China would lead to world war, and China would not precipitate such a thing! That what they were themselves doing was also “reckless” did not apparently strike the wise men.
Neglecting External Security
Rather than settling and securing India’s borders, Nehru practically made the whole long border, whether in the west or northwest with Pakistan, or in the north and northeast with China or in the east with East-Pakistan (now Bangladesh) become sensitive, requiring a fortune to defend.
Rather than strengthening an already weak army, he further weakened it by allowing its politicisation.
Rather than having strong allies on its side to deter others, India, thanks to Nehru’s self-defeating foreign policies, remained non-aligned so that Pakistan (aligned with the West) and China (aligned with the USSR) felt free to attack you, knowing it to be a non-risky business as no body would come to the rescue of non-aligned India in its hours of distress.
Nehru seemed to be clueless, even irresponsible, in not realising what it took for the country of the size of India, with its many inherited problems, to be able to defend itself adequately and deter others from any designs over it.
On one hand, Nehru failed to settle border-issue with China, and on the other, he did irresponsibly little to militarily secure the borders we claimed ours. Nehru and his Defence Minister Krishna Menon ignored the persistent demands for military upgradation.
India’s army chief, KS Thimayya, had repeatedly raised the issue of army’s gross weaknesses in defending itself from China.
I hope I am not leaving you as cannon fodder for the Chinese. God bless you all!
— KS Thimayya, India’s army chief, farewell speech upon retirement, 1961
There was no overall political objective; no National Policy; no grand strategy and total unreadiness for military operations in the awesome Himalayan mountains, against a first-class land power… We did not study the pattern of weapons and communications equipments that we may require. Army Schools of Instruction were oriented towards open warfare. There was little emphasis on mountain warfare despite the Army’s deployment in Kashmir from 1947… The Army was forgotten; its equipment allowed to become obsolete, certainly obsolescent; and its training academic and outdated. We merely tried to maintain what we had inherited in 1947… The political assumptions of our defence policies were invalid and dangerous… In October 1962 Indians were shocked beyond words to discover that we had no modern rifle…
— Brigadier JP Dalvi, Himalayan Blunder
Not Taking Responsibility — Israel’s Example, in sharp contrast to Nehru’s
Israel successfully repelled the combined attack from Egypt and Syria in 1973—what has come to be known as the Yom Kippur War. After its decisive victories against the Arabs in 1967, Israel was a little laid back and unprepared, thinking there wouldn’t be any further wars. The attack of 1973 therefore came as a surprise to it. Still, after the initial setbacks and panic, it rose to the challenge. Golda Meir was the prime minister then. Even though Israel’s ultimate victory was spectacular and decisive, they immediately instituted an enquiry to fix responsibility for the initial setbacks and the panic reaction, and the lapses that led to the attack coming as a surprise.
The preliminary report took just a few months and was released on April 2, 1974—it actually named names of those responsible. Several top-ranking staff were asked to resign. Golda Meir was not named, but taking overall responsibility, she resigned on April 10, 1974—after mere eight days of release of the report, which was only a preliminary report! This, even though Israel, under Golda Meir, had actually won the war decisively and turned the tables on the Arab countries that had attacked them!
Even though India lost pathetically in the 1962 India-China War, Nehru government instituted no enquiry; and Nehru did not even make a gesture of an offer to resign. Any democratic country, worth its salt, would have instituted a detailed enquiry into all aspects of the debacle. But, what happened in practice? Nothing!
When the inevitable disaster came Nehru did not even have grace or courage to admit his errors or seek a fresh mandate from the people. He did not even go through the motion of resigning; he merely presented his trusted colleagues and military appointees as sacrificial offerings… Instead of gracefully accepting responsibility for erroneous policies, the guilty men sought alibis and scapegoats. In any developed democracy the Government would have been replaced, instead of being allowed to continue in office and sit in judgement on their subordinates… We must also learn that a democracy has no room for proven failures. This is not a matter of sentiment. Mr Chamberlain was removed after Hitler invaded France in May 1940 with Cromwell’s classic plea, ‘For God’s sake, go’. Mr Anthony Eden was forced out of office after the disastrous Suez adventure of 1956…
— Brigadier JP Dalvi, Himalayan Blunder
BLUNDER IV
Major Blunder – IV
Nehru: Foreign to Foreign Policy
People eulogise Nehru for his expertise in international affairs, and credit him as the founder of India’s foreign policy. Founder he was, but were the foundations solid? Or, were they rickety? Or, were there no foundations at all? Was it all airy ad-hocism, and one-man’s-pontifications? Crucially, was it a foreign policy that benefited India? Or, was it merely a device for Nehru for self-posturing and to project himself internationally?
How come all our major neighbours became our enemies? And, a friendly neighbour, Tibet, disappeared as an independent nation? How was it that our foreign policy turned India into a country no one took seriously? You evaluate a policy by its results, not by its verbosity and pompousness.
He [Nehru] insisted on keeping the portfolio of external affairs for himself. It was a disadvantage to him that he did so, because, as head of the whole government of India, he had to deal with a range of internal problems already too much for one mind. And it was a disadvantage to the Indian foreign office and the Indian diplomatic service. In effect he did damage to both, and at a formative and impressionable stage of their growth…
— Walter Crocker, Nehru: A Contemporary’s Estimate
BR Ambedkar criticised Nehru’s foreign policy for trying to “solve the problems of other countries and not [exerting] to solve the problems of our own country!”
No to India’s UNSC Membership
Both the US and the USSR were willing to accommodate India as a Permanent Member of the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) in 1955, in lieu of Taiwan, or as a sixth member, after amending the UN charter. This Nehru refused! Nehru wanted the seat to be given to PRC (Peoples Republic of China), as Nehru did not want China to be marginalised! Even though not asked by China, India, of its own accord, had been vigorously advocating PRC for the Permanent Membership of the UNSC in lieu of Taiwan!
It was almost as if Nehru, for reasons one cannot fathom, totally ignored India’s own strategic interests!
Indian diplomats who have seen the files swear that at about the same time Jawaharlal also declined a US offer to take the permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council then held, with scant credibility, by Taiwan, urging that it be offered to Beijing instead… But it was one thing to fulminate against Great Power machinations, another to run a national foreign policy with little regard to the imperatives of power or the need of a country to bargain from a position of strength.
— Shashi Tharoor, Nehru: The Invention of India
Advocating UN Membership & UNSC Seat for China
India lobbied with all nations for the UN membership and for the UNSC permanent seat, not for itself, but for China!
Even though China had invaded Tibet, Panikkar, the Indian Ambassador in Beijing, went so far as to pretend that there was lack of confirmation of the presence of Chinese troops in Tibet and that to protest the Chinese invasion of Tibet would be an interference to India’s efforts on behalf of China in the UN! That is, complaining against China on behalf of Tibet would show China in bad light—as an aggressor—when it was more important for India to ensure China’s entry into the UN, for which India had been trying, and ensure that this effort of India was not thwarted by taking up China’s Tibet aggression!
What kind of crazy Nehruvian foreign policy was this? Our own national security interest and the interest of Tibet were sought to be sacrificed to help China enter the UN!!
Nehru’s position effectively amounted to sacrificing India’s national security interests in Tibet so as not to weaken China’s case in the UN! By some weird logic Nehru felt that China’s entry into UN would ensure World Peace! But, what World Peace! Had India, a weakling, taken up the quixotic task of ensuring World Peace? And, did anti-colonial and anti-imperialist Nehru consider taking over of Tibet by China compatible with World Peace, and with anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism?
Non-alignment
Non-aligned policy fetched no gains for India. If India had aligned itself with the US and the West, not only would India have been much better off economically, China would not have dared to attack India, nor would Pakistan have either attacked Kashmir or played mischief in J&K—the UK and the USA would not have favoured Pakistan over India on Kashmir, and the Kashmir issue would have been solved in India’s favour long ago.
All that non-alignment did was it helped project the image of Nehru on the world stage. It did precious little for India. In fact India grievously suffered from that stand.
Indus Water Treaty
In the India-Pakistan Indus Water Treaty of 1960 on sharing of waters from the six Indus-system rivers, Nehru gave away far, far more than what was adequate, miserably failing to envisage India’s future needs.
India-Pakistan Indus Water Treaty of 1960 has parallel with India-China Panchsheel agreement of 1954. Both had generous “give away” but no reciprocal “take” and both were thanks to Nehru!
Jawaharlal Nehru ignored the interests of Jammu and Kashmir and, to a lesser extent, Punjab when he signed the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, under which India bigheartedly agreed to the exclusive reservation of the largest three of the six Indus-system rivers for downstream Pakistan. In effect, India signed an extraordinary treaty indefinitely setting aside 80.52% of the Indus-system waters for Pakistan—the most generous water-sharing pact thus far in modern world history. In fact, the volume of waters earmarked for Pakistan from India under the Indus treaty is more than 90 times greater than what the US is required to release for Mexico under the 1944 US-Mexico Water Treaty… India and Nehru did not envisage—you may call it a lack of foresight on their part—that water resources would come under serious strain due to developmental and population pressures. Today, as the bulk of the Indus system’s waters continue to flow to an adversarial Pakistan waging a war by terror, India’s own Indus basin… is reeling under a massive 52% deficit between water supply and demand.
— Brahma Chellaney, The Economic Times, 10 May 2012
Sri Lankan Tamil Problem
The Sri Lankan Tamil problem was allowed to fester and Nehru did little to get the matter resolved in the fifties, when it could have been—and it grew worse.
Walter Crocker, who was then the Australian ambassador to India, says in his book, Nehru: A Contemporary’s Estimate, that while India and Nehru spoke against the treatment of Africans in the European colonies, and justifiably so; in contrast, with regard to the ill treatment of Tamils in Ceylon, they did precious little.
But, that was typical of Nehru. He railed against the discrimination and savagery in distant lands—say, against blacks in South Africa—but remained conspicuously silent about our own people next door: against the Hindus in East Pakistan, or against the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Because, the former—faulting savagery in distant lands like say South Africa—required only talking; while the latter required action too! Nehru believed in the convenient—talking. Not in the messy and the troublesome—action!
If India had succeeded in doing the needful in the fifties, much of the trouble that Sri Lanka and the Tamils and the Sinhalas faced subsequently could have been avoided. It is in such cases that the statesmanship of a person is tested.
BLUNDER V
Major Blunder – V
Dynastic Democracy
Dynastic Politics
Jawaharlal Nehru was unfairly promoted by his father, Motilal Nehru; and in the true dynastic and family traditions, Nehru promoted Indira, who in turn, even more shamelessly promoted her progeny. When Motilal Nehru retired as the Congress president in 1929, he made sure, with Gandhiji’s backing, that his son, Jawaharlal, ascended the gaddi, over the heads of people much more senior and capable than him.
Jawaharlal Nehru’s dynastic tendencies were apparent in the 1930s. After the 1937 elections when the ministry was being formed in UP, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai and Govind Ballabh Pant, who became the Chief Minister, proposed to Nehru inclusion of Mrs Vijaylakshmi Pandit [Nehru’s sister] in the ministry, not because they considered her fit for the job, but because, by doing so, they hoped to receive Nehru’s favour.
Liaquat Ali Khan and Nehru [who in 1946 was the head of the Interim Government] almost came to blows in the interim government’s cabinet, when Nehru named his sister Nan [Vijaylakshmi Pandit] as India’s first ambassador to Moscow. Liaquat was livid at such autocratic blatant nepotism, but his protests fell on deaf ears. Nehru yelled louder and threatened to resign immediately if Dickie [Mountbatten] supported Liaquat in the matter.
— Stanley Wolpert, Nehru
Another such instance I remember was when Dr. S. Radhakrishnan was president of India… One day, when I went to him he said, “Nijalingappa, today I put my foot down. Do you know why?’ He then continued, ‘Pandit Nehru comes to me and wants me to make his sister, Vijay Lakshmi Pandit, vice-president of India. I had to tell him, ‘You are the prime minister of India, your daughter is the president of Indian National Congress and you want your sister to be vice-president. What would people say? I cannot have it.’ I put my foot down and sent him away.”
— S. Nijalingappa, My Life and Politics
Dynacracy (Dynastic democracy) is bad not just because we resent some having unfair advantage, it is bad because it results in mediocrity, as it discounts merit. The quality of leadership emerging out of a dynastic process can never be really good. For proof, check for yourself the unutterable underachievements of the underwhelming leadership of the dynasts, at the state or at the Centre, and how it has become worse and worse down the generation: for example, from Nehru down to Rahul Gandhi.
Nehru never appointed a deputy prime minister (after Patel) or a senior minister who would take his place in his absence (when abroad or unwell or on holiday), which was desirable from all angles. It was his national responsibility to build up a capable successor, more so because India was a nascent democracy. But, he didn’t do it. Why? Because, while he could not have anointed Indira Gandhi in that position knowing the just and severe criticism it would attract, he didn’t wish anyone else to get precedence, while building up meanwhile Indira’s stature gradually.
Although Indira Gandhi had done little work for the Congress, she was made a member of the Congress Working Committee—entry directly from the top, rather than rising from the bottom. She was then made President of the Congress, to the astonishment of all, after an intense behind the scenes drama, managed through others by Nehru. Nehru had also started developing her as a public figure, which included giving her exposure to foreign dignitaries and guests. Kamraj Plan was also used to clear the way for Indira from the seniors.
Acharya Kripalani believed that the evils in the country emanated from the top and that Nehru was the pace-setter in abusing patronage and power.
Suddenly, at this juncture, Indira Gandhi, Jawaharlal’s daughter, was named party president. Her talents were yet a secret, and she had no experience of party work. Several of Nehru’s colleagues were offended by the choice but said nothing. C.R. [Rajagopalachari] was outraged.
— Rajmohan Gandhi, Rajaji: A Life
This was where I first heard that Congress President V.N. Dhebar was resigning and Indira Gandhi was taking over. Pant had supported Nehru at Vinobha’s ashram but not at the CWC when Indira Gandhi was nominated as the party president. He was careful not to oppose Nehru’s daughter directly but argued that her frail health would come in the way of the extensive travels the Congress president was required to undertake. Raising his voice, Nehru told Pant that ‘she was healthier than both of us’ and could put in longer hours of work… This was the first time that dynastic politics came to the fore, and the Congress since then has been following the practice of invariably having a member of Nehru family at the helm of affairs…
— Kuldip Nayar, Beyond the Lines
One may say that Nehru did not make Indira Gandhi the PM. But, he was working towards it. However, before he could fulfil his mission he passed away. Though he had done the ground work—given the necessary visibility to her. Lal Bahadur Shastri had himself told that “in Panditji’s mind is his daughter”.
I ventured to ask Shastri one day: ‘Who do you think Nehru has in mind as his successor?’ ‘Unke dil main to unki saputri hai [In his heart is his daughter],’ said Shastri… Nijalingappa said he was pretty sure that Nehru had his daughter in mind as his successor. In his diary, he wrote on 15 July 1969 that Nehru ‘was always grooming her for the prime-ministership obviously and patently’.
— Kuldip Nayar, Beyond the Lines
Gift: Democracy or Dynacracy?
Not seldom are those who tend to be critical of Nehru reminded it is thanks to Nehru India is a democracy, whose fruits all Indians are enjoying—including criticising him. Does the contention hold?
Elections were conducted in India during the British times too. Congress had not only won the 1937-elections and formed ministries in many states; post elections, with power in their hands, they had already become so corrupt that Gandhi had desired disbanding of Congress after independence. The last pre-independence elections were held in 1946. Independent India inherited many democratic institutions, including election machinery—only it needed a boost to handle universal suffrage.
It was, in fact, the Constitution of India framed under Dr Ambedkar, and passed by the Constituent Assembly comprising scores of worthies and headed by Dr Rajendra Prasad, which had provided for universal adult franchise and democratic setup. So, how can the credit be given to Nehru?
Nehru’s own election as the president of Congress in 1946, that led to his becoming India’s first prime minister upon independence, was undemocratic. In 1946, Azad’s successor as the Congress President was to be chosen. The choice was critical then because whoever became the Congress President would also have become the head of the Interim Government and the first prime minister of independent India.
12 of the 15 (80%) PCCs nominated Sardar Patel. 3 PCCs of the 15 (20%) did not nominate anyone. Although Mahatma Gandhi had made his choice clear in favour of Nehru, and it was known to Congress persons and PCCs, yet not a single PCC nominated Nehru. As such, Nehru should have been totally out of the race. It was a non-contest. Sardar Patel was the only choice, and an undisputed choice, with not a single opposition. But, was Sardar Patel chosen?
Reportedly, Gandhi did tell Nehru that no one had nominated him, expecting him to go by the majority; but, Nehru let it be understood that he would not play second fiddle to anybody. A disappointed Gandhi apparently gave into Nehru’s obduracy and prevailed upon Sardar Patel to step down in favour of Nehru. This is how Nehru became the Congress President, and thereafter the head of the Interim Government, and later the first PM. If Nehru were genuinely a democrat, he should have refused the position and prevailed upon Gandhi to go by the wishes of the overwhelming majority.
Taken Shame Out of Dynacracy
The dynastic politics that Nehru started and thus sanctified has now vitiated and poisoned our whole democratic system. When people talk of Nehru as a great democrat, one can’t help but laugh. How can a person who laid the foundation of dynastic rule in democratic India be ever called a democrat? Democracy grafted on a nation with a strong feudal mindset is likely to degenerate into dynacracy, unless the leaders who matter consciously devote themselves to ensuring it does not happen, both by setting an example themselves (like Sardar Patel and Gandhi) and by putting in place appropriate systems. Rather than doing that, Nehru sanctified dynacracy through his actions, and Indira Gandhi unabashedly promoted it. Following in their footsteps, now most leaders promote their own dynasty in politics. It has now become all pervasive and has vitiated and poisoned our whole democratic system.
Now, it’s not just Nehru’s heirs—we now have heirs in nearly every state.
Not Limiting the Term of the PM
If Nehru was a true democrat, he should have taken a page out of the US Constitution, and limited the term of a prime minister to just two terms—like the President of the US. Not only that, on completion of two terms passing on the baton to one’s kin should also have been prohibited, to ensure dynasties did not take over politics. Dynasties have a vested interest in continuance at the expense of the nation. They also have a vested interest in covering up all the wrong doings of the dynasty.
Following Nehru’s footsteps, you find a strange spectacle of people—whether young or old, and whether in a political position or a bureaucratic position or a position in a sports body—not wanting to ever quit. Where extension is not possible, bureaucrats would seek some position or the other, post retirement. Officials of sports bodies—whether a politician or a retired-IPS or a businessman or any other—wish to continue for life!
Contrast the above with George Washington, co-founder of the USA. He was proclaimed the “Father of the Country” and was elected the first president of USA in 1789 with virtually no opposition. Washington retired in 1797, firmly declining to serve for more than eight years—two terms—despite requests to continue. His tremendous role in creating and running America notwithstanding, he didn’t harbour or propagate self-serving notions of indispensability. The 22nd amendment to the US constitution setting a maximum of only two terms for the president came only in 1947. Prior to that it was only an observed good practice for over a century.
Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President and one of the founding fathers of the US, famous for his many achievements and for having originally drafted the Declaration of Independence of the US in 1776, was also requested, pressurised and persuaded to consider continuing as President after completion of two terms in 1808, on account of his excellent performance on multiple counts—during his tenure the geographical area of the USA almost doubled, upon purchase of Louisiana from the French, which in turn ended the dispute about the navigation of the Mississippi. However, stressing the democratic and republican ideals, he refused, even though there was no legal bar then, and people would have loved him to continue.
Irresponsible Act: Not Appointing a Successor, Deliberately
Nehru did not appoint a senior cabinet minister or a deputy prime minister to function in his absence when he went abroad. A responsible prime minister would have done so, and would have scotched all speculations on “After Nehru, who?” But he deliberately did not do so both to show to the world how indispensable and irreplaceable he was, and to make way for his daughter. Nehru thus sacrificed national interests for personal dynastic interests.
Nehru’s mentor, Gandhi, took care to appoint him as PM, and never promoted his own progeny. Nehru, despite having ruled too long, did not think it fit to pass the baton to anyone, even though it was not as if the country was doing great during his time, and his not being there would have adversely affected the nation. On the contrary, with him not there, things might have improved, provided, of course, the baton had not been passed to his daughter!
Contrast Nehru with Sardar Patel, who had told his son and grandson, when they visited him [Sardar] after he suffered a heart-attack in Delhi: “As long as I am in this chair, don’t visit Delhi, unless I am unwell and you have to see me… All sorts of people will contact you. Take care.” (Rajmohan Gandhi in Patel – A Life.)
For the rest of the union, the lasting affliction of Nehru’s rule has been the dynastic system he left it. He claimed to reject any dynastic principle, and his capacity for self-deception was perhaps great enough for him to believe he was doing so. But his refusal to indicate any colleague as a successor, and complaisance in the elevation of his daughter—with no qualifications other than her birth for the post—to the presidency of Congress, where Gandhi had once placed him for his own trampoline to power, speak for themselves.
— Perry Anderson, Professor of History and Sociology, UCLA
It is no less strange that Nehru clung to office for so long. It would have been of help to the cause of parliamentary democracy in India if he had stood down… This is what Kemal Ataturk did… For one thing his long domination sapped the opposition; the opposition is an essential part of parliamentary democracy…
— Walter Crocker, Nehru: A Contemporary’s Estimate
Written by @Rajnikant_rkp. Originally published April 13, 2016 on Yuga Parivartan. Based on the book Foundations of Misery: Blunders of the Nehruvian Era.
