In 1954, Jawahar Lal Nehru got angry and misbehaved during a CONgress meet when someone disagreed with him.
Nehru lighting a cigarette for the then British High Commissioner's wife
Jawahar Lal Nehru hugging Edwina Mountbatten
Nehru with US President John F Kennedy's wife Jacqueline 'Jacqui' Kennedy. At your service Madame!
There is a rule Gandhis follow. It is called "Rules are for others". Chacha Nehru explains with this pic. Image courtesy: india_review
Nehru being thrashed by angry people after 1962 China war debacle.
Nehru wanted to scuttle Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's Operation Polo plan to annex Hyderabad for united India. Imagine if Nehru had succeeded in his nefarious stupid interference then we would have had another Kashmir like situation in India.
Unemployment, corruption, inflation, poverty, and crime has increased and Rupee ₹ has devalued, whenever Jawaharlal Nehru and fake Gandhi dynasty (Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi, Robert Vadra) led corrupt communal CONgress has come into power and misruled India.
Do not copy content from this page. You may quote an excerpt from this article/post but please do put a reference.
I was recently in a debate with an acquaintance of mine on the current political environment in Bharat (misnomer: India) after we all saw in full awe and shame on international media the show of communal speeches and corruption inside the Parliament and outside it by the elected members. Communal speeches such as by Omar Abdullah, son of Farooq Abdullah, who thumped his chest on the floor of Parliament and shouted we (Muslims) will not give an inch of land to the Hindus for lodging during Shri Amarnath ji Yatra pilgrimage. While I was talking about the unprecedented display of corruption by Congress and SP in their cash-for-votes scam and communal bias by the same party's govt. in suppression of freedom of speech and press in Jammu to suppress people's non-cooperation movement. My acquaintance was bent on proving that everything is hunky-dory in the country and that Bharat is on the path set by whom he calls the "great" "Chacha" "Pandit" Nehru.
While I don't agree with his former assessment that everything is hunky-dory in country but I totally agree with the latter part of it that Bharat is on the path set by Nehru. That is when I asked him the following to make sure if we are talking about the same Nehru.
Isn't it the same Nehru who did 1962 blunder? Isn't it the same Nehru who made a communal statement that I am Muslim by heart and Hindu by accident? Isn't it the same Nehru who in 1955 relinquished Bharat's UNSC seat to China to kiss their a*s, who in turn gave Bharat a finger in form of 1962 war? Isn't it the same Nehru who despite of many opposition blindly took Bharat down the path of Made-In-USSR-Only Socialism and closed controlled command economy full of red tapism and no competition that made Bharat almost bankrupt in long term? Popularly termed as "The Nehruvian Penalty: 50 wasted years" by Rajeev Srinivasan in an article. Thank god for the then visionary Prime Minister PV Narsimha Rao who guided the then Finance Minister Manmohan Singh in 1990-1991 and saved Bharat through some economic reforms. Pity that Manmohan Singh has not shown that vision and commitment in the past 4 1/2 years as Prime Minister of Bharat.
Isn't it the same Nehru who pressured "the real" Gandhi ji for partition? Isn't it the same "lawyer by profession" Nehru who jumped in for PM post bypassing the more deserving Sardar Patel ji? Isn't it the same Nehru who let Pakistan and China take a chunk of Bharat away and said its OK, we don't want no conflict, we will solve it later? Height of indecisiveness! Isn't it the same Nehru who gave up Tibet knowingly that there will be Human Rights violations under Chinese control and it is the only natural buffer between us and them? Also, knowingly that it has the holiest of Hindu sites there, Shri Kailash Mansarovar. But he dun't care cause he was sorry and ashamed to be a Hindu. Isn't it the same Nehru who laid the foundation of Nepotist monarchy in disguise of democracy by passing the throne to Indira Feroz Ghandi and so on? Isn't it the same Nehru who endorsed parallel court system with a separate Islamic Sharia Muslim personal law and court system for Bhartiya Muslims? A slap in the face of democracy and justice system as Muslims hold their Sharia court decisions above the Supreme Court of Bharat. Isn't it the same Nehru who enacted laws to give Haj subsidies to Muslims but no such subsidies to any pilgrim of any other religion? Isn't it the same Nehru who enacted laws to control Temple funds and deny equal rights to Hindu institutions? What kind of secularism is this?
One of the worst of all decisions is this one. Isn't it the same Nehru who doctored our rich history, and gave more importance and propagated British and West-is-the-best legacy, ideology, and English as main language instead of any of the Bharatiya (misnomer: Indian) languages? The first thing Israel and other countries did when they got independence was to create an university with Hebrew, etc. resp. as their official language. The first thing Nehru did was to declare Samskrtam (Sanskrit) as dead language. He gave his "tryst with destiny" speech in English for god sakes. Like average Bharatiya population in those times could understand what he was saying. Ignorant jerk!
Isn't it the same congress which hasn't made any proper infrastructure around Bharat in 55 years? It was Vajpayee ji who started Golden Quadrilateral Highways which by the way have been slowed down to almost Shunya in most of the states under the current govt. And what did egomaniacal congress do, they spend the money kept aside to plant trees on both sides of these highways to remove Mr. Vajpayee's name and picture from "Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Golden Quadrilateral Highways" boards on the highway. Why? Are only Nehru-Ghandi family tree allowed to have all the projects, airports, and now even IIMs are named after them? Now you (my acquaintance) will cry and say BJP stole this too. BJP started the world class Delhi Metro, something every Indraprasth citizen is proud of. Now you (my acquaintance) will cry and say BJP stole this too.
The wasteful pet project NREGA of dictator Lady Bountiful Sonia Gandhi has been implemented best in non-Congress and non-Left states particularly in BJP states. Now you (my acquaintance) will cry that because they (BJP) are in State govt., so they are taking the credit. What about their (Congress, UPA, et al) own (mis)ruled states? Congress has not answered where are those रु. 65000 crores of loan waiver going to come from. Obviously from the pocket of 3% of Bharatvaasi (misnomer: Indian) who pay taxes. What a precedence they have set!! We will not create infrastructure and environment for you to grow. But you don't worry, feel free to default the loans as we can't stop you from suiciding say by bringing reforms, so we will just waive it off. Because there are people like my acquaintance who "trust" us blindly and love to point fingers at others. Way to go, like I said, the grand old tradition of Nehru-Ghandi family, "If you can't claim it, blaim it on others". Nehru, the leader, yeah right. More of Nehru, the blunder. Just google "Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai", you will learn more about this bloomer.
My acquaintance replied: "Yeah, we are talking about the same Nehru."
॥सत्यमेव जयते नानृतं॥ (Truth Alone Triumphs, not falsehood) - Mundak Upanishad 3.1.6
References:
- Nehru's hate and ignorance for Sanatan Dharm (Hindu)
- Violation of Hindu Human Rights − Need for a Hindu nation − III, by V Sundaram (Retd. IAS Officer)
Tragically for the Hindu Nation, Jawaharlal Nehru shamelessly declared: 'To talk of Hindu culture would injure India's interests. By education I am an Englishman, by views an internationalist, by culture a Muslim, and I am a Hindu only by accident of birth…. The ideology of Hindu Dharma is completely out of tune with the present times and if it took root in India, it would smash the country to pieces'. Nehru dismissed the Hindus of India as a mere religious community without any cultural traditions going back to the dawn of history. Thus Nehru had total contempt for Hindu religion, for Hindu culture, for Hindu society and above all for the average Hindu.
- Violation of Hindu Human Rights − Need for a Hindu nation − I, by V Sundaram (Retd. IAS Officer)
- Violation of Hindu Human Rights − Need for a Hindu nation − IV, by V Sundaram (Retd. IAS Officer)
- Cry for a Hindu Nation, by V Sundaram (Retd. IAS Officer)
- I am Hindu by accident by Raghav on November 28, 2007
- Still think Pandit?
- Still think Pandit?
- Let us now praise famous men Part 1 by Rajeev Srinivasan on September 16, 1999
- Nehru: India's last English PM!, by D P Sinha, The Observer on November 12 1997
In a passing moment of emotional weakness, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of Independent India, shared a deep secret with the then American diplomat John Galbraith, who said: "It did not especially surprise me, when once in a relaxed' moment he (Nehru) said - well, you know I am the last Englishman to rule in India".
To believe this is difficult. Is it possible that India's first Prime Minister, a man who defiantly challenged the British rule, belligerently criticised its policies and went to jail again and again, could claim to be an Englishmen? And that, too, with an unmistakable stamp of pride. An irony indeed!
But Jawaharlal Nehru did not conceive of independent India's new fledged government as an insurrectionary government with all its inherent potential.
The anti-Hindu policy is another heirloom from the white rulers which the Nehru government wholeheartedly followed.
In August 1947, Dr Rajendra Prasad, who was the chairman of the Constituent Assembly wrote to Nehru about cow slaughter and the fact that a majority of Hindu sentiments run high against the cow slaughter.
Jawaharlal Nehru responded that he is well aware of the Hindu sentimentality and, yet he would much rather resign from the prime ministerial position than bow before it.
The man who can derive pleasure from the weakening and fragmenting of the Hindu society can hardly be a Hindu himself. Disclaiming his Hindu identity, Nehru declared that by education he was an Englishman, by culture a Muslim and by accident of birth, a Hindu. It is a mere throw of the dice that he was born to a Hindu couple, otherwise he had no undertaking with the Hindus.
Albeit, it is a different matter that to remain the beloved Prime Minister of a Hindu majority electorate, Nehru stuck to his Brahmanical title 'Pandit' pretty much in the same way as he stuck to the Gandhi cap on his bald head: Both lending him validity and at the same time functioning as tools to hoodwink Hindu masses. It was the same exigency that compelled him to accept anti-cow slaughter as one of the Directive Principles of our Constitution.
- Do You Know Your Sonia? by Dr. Subramanian Swamy
- Know Sonia Gandhi
- The Blunder of Nehru by Claude Arpi on June 16, 2004
- Nehru's jump to the post of Prime Minister bypassing the more deserving Iron Man of Bharat Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel ji
- TWO MISSED OPPORTUNITIES, SIX DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES by Mr. Lal Krishna Advani, ex-deputy Prime Minister of India on 26 June 2011
A martyr is one who sacrifices his or her life on the battlefield fighting against an enemy nation. But Dr. Mookerjee became a martyr while fighting a government in our own country. His fight was for the full integration of Jammu & Kashmir with the Indian Union. He was a visionary who had foreseen the consequences of placing Jammu & Kashmir, a strategically located state, in a separate and tenuous Constitutional relationship with the rest of India.
Sadly, neither the government of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in New Delhi nor the government of Shaikh Abdullah in Srinagar believed that Jammu & Kashmir needed to be fully integrated into the Indian Union.
In the case of Shaikh Abdullah, the problem was his ambition to become the unquestioned leader of a virtually independent Kashmir. In the case of Nehruji, it was a matter of lack of courage, firmness and foresight.
Article 370 in the Indian Constitution, which Pandit Nehru himself had declared to be a “temporary provision”, has still not been abrogated. As a result, secessionist forces in Kashmir, aided and instigated by the anti-India establishment in Pakistan, continue to feel emboldened to carry out their poisonous propaganda that J&K’s accession to India is not final and that Kashmir, in particular, is not a part of India.
Our country has paid an incalculable price for Nehruji’s failure to settle the Kashmir issue once and for all in India’s favour at the time of Partition. Nehruji’s blunder was totally avoidable. After all, Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was successful in securing the integration of all the other princely states — 561 of them — into the Indian Union. When a few of them dithered, or dared to express their intention to join Pakistan, Patel used the might of the newly independent Indian State to show them their place. For example, the armed resistance of the Nizam of Hyderabad was crushed with a heavy hand. The ruler of Junagadh fled away to Pakistan .
Jammu & Kashmir was the only princely state whose accession was being handled directly by Prime Minister Nehru. In fact, Pakistan’s first war against India in 1947 to capture Kashmir through force and subterfuge had given Nehruji’s government an excellent opportunity not only to fully beat back the invaders but also to resolve the Kashmir issue with Pakistan once and for all.
India frittered away a second big opportunity to settle the Kashmir issue once and for all in the 1971 India-Pak war, in which Pakistan was not only roundly defeated but India had as many as 90,000 Pakistani PoWs.
Hence, our countrymen should know that the Kashmir problem is Nehru family’s special ‘gift’ to the nation.
The consequences of this ‘gift’ are:
- Pakistan’s export of cross-border terrorism first into Kashmir, and later into other parts of India.
- Pakistan’s export of religious extremism into Kashmir, which has subsequently spread to other parts of India.
- Thousands of lives of our security personnel and civilians.
- Tens of thousands of crores of rupees spent on military and paramilitary defense.
- An opportunity for external powers to fish in the troubled waters of India-Pakistan relations.
- Almost the entire population of Kashmiri Pandits having been driven out of their own homeland and become refugees or “internally displaced” people in their own motherland.
Dr. Mookerjee had foreseen that placing Jammu & Kashmir on a separate and unsound Constitutional footing would have disastrous consequences. But he not only envisioned J&K’s full integration with India, but, as a brave and lion-hearted patriot, he transformed his vision into his personal mission.
He set out to implement his mission on three terrains – political, parliamentary and on-the-ground in Kashmir.
Firstly, in October 1951, he founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, as a truly nationalist alternative to the Congress. Apart from struggling for Kashmir’s full integration with India, the agenda of the Jana Sangh extended to rebuilding the newly independent India in a manner that ensured prosperity, justice, security and welfare for all its citizens without any kind of discrimination on grounds of religion, caste, language, etc.
Secondly, after the Jana Sangh made a debut in the first general elections in 1952, Dr. Mookerjee emerged as the de-facto Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Here he stoutly opposed the Congress government’s policy towards J&K, which, among other things, meant that no one, including the President and the Prime Minister of India could enter into Kashmir without the permission of Kashmir’s “Prime Minister”. Kashmir would have its own Constitution, its own President (Sadar–e-Riyasat) and Prime Minister and its own Flag! In protest, Dr. Mookerjee thundered: “Ek desh mein do Vidhan, do Pradhan and Do Nishan nahin challenge”.
Thirdly, Dr. Mookerjee announced in 1953 that he would visit Kashmir without seeking a permit. On May 11, while crossing the border into Kashmir, he was arrested and held as a detenu in Srinagar. He was not provided proper medical assistance when his health deteriorated and, on June 23, he died under mysterious circumstances.
Dr. Mookerjee’s sacrifice had immediate consequences.
The permit system was scrapped, and the National Tricolour started flying in the State.
In course of time, the authority of the Rashtrapati, the Supreme Court, the Election Commission and the C.A.G. was extended to J& K. State.
When in the name of giving autonomy to J&K state, some people talk of restoring the pre-1953 position, the implications must be understood. The people of India are not going to allow the gains to the nation secured by Dr. Syama Prasad’s martyrdom to be undone under any circumstances
It is a shame that the history of Dr. Mookerjee’s martyrdom for the cause of India’s unity and integrity is not taught to our students in schools and colleges.
Our education system and the government-controlled mass media glorifies the contribution of the Nehru family, but deliberately underplays or blacks out the struggles and sacrifices of other patriots, such as Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, Sardar Patel, Gopinath Bordoloi, Rammanohar Lohia, Jayaprakash Narayan, Hiren Mukherjee, A.K. Gopalan and, of course, Dr. Mookerjee.
***
There was a time when the Congress was a broad platform that accommodated patriots of all hues. Indeed, it was at the behest of Mahatma Gandhi, that Dr. Mookerjee, who then belonged to the Hindu Maha Sabha, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar who had been a bitter critic of the Congress Party were included in Pandit Nehru’s first Cabinet after Independence.
Sadly, the Congress today has become the fiefdom of a single family. The office of Prime Minister is reserved either for the nominee or a member of the Nehru family. India is paying a heavy price because of a Prime Minister nominated by the Congress president.
And now the demand has arisen from within the Congress Party that a scion of the Nehru family should take over the Prime Ministership.
Our country cannot afford continuation of the misrule that UPA represents. Prime Ministership of a great democracy like India should not be allowed to become the jagirdari of a family.
- Mr Straw, do you know who created the Kashmir mess? by Claude Arpi on May 28, 2002
- The Nehruvian Penalty: 50 wasted years by Rajeev Srinivasan on January 14, 2004
- U.N. Security Council Seat: China Outsmarts India by Sreeram Chaulia, Indo-Asian News Service on May 30, 2008
- India's Security Council Bid a Long Haul by Ranjit Devraj on September 27, 2004
China managed a seat in the Security Council only because India, when invited to join the Security Council in 1955, declined in favor of its bigger neighbor.
"The first step to be taken is for China to take her rightful place, and then the question of India might be discussed separately," India's then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in a letter to the country's top political leaders – explaining why he supported Beijing.
- Nehru's Tibet policies
- Nehru's prejudice policies towards Kailash Mansarovar
- It was as if India did not exist by Claude Arpi (French-born author and journalist who lives in Auroville, India. He has authored several books like The Fate of Tibet, India and her neighbourhood, and Born in Sin: The Panchsheel Agreement) and Ramananda Sengupta on Jun 30,2008
Ramananda Sengupta: While researching for it, did you stumble across anything which made you look at issues differently from how you used to?
Claude Arpi: When I started my research, I soon discovered that the Indian Archives were closed to the Indian public. The Government has confiscated the modern history of India. This still upsets me very much. Very few in India seem to care about the fact that the Nehru Papers are locked in almirahs in the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund and permission to view these State documents has to be begged for from the ruling family. It is probably the only nation in the world where such nonsense can continue unchallenged.
Ramananda Sengupta: Can India afford to take a tough negotiating position with China on the Tibet issue?
Claude Arpi: India first has to be tough to defend her own interests. Once she does this, her position vis-Ã -vis Tibet will automatically be clearer. Nehru purposefully decided to keep the Indian position 'vague', to not upset China, with the result that there is a border issue pending for the last 50 years. In my book (I quote from a Press Conference of Nehru in 1949) in two sentences, he used the word 'vague' five times to define India's position vis-Ã -vis Tibet, while he knew perfectly well that Tibet was an independent nation. Today we are still reaping the consequences of this original sin, look at what is happening in Arunachal or Sikkim. When Nehru finally woke up, (October 1962), it was too late.
Ramananda Sengupta: The title says 'Lost Frontier'. Are you referring to the notion of it being a buffer state against China for India, or something more?
Claude Arpi: The 'lost frontier' is India's frontier. For 2000 years, people, monks, pandits, yogis, pilgrims, traders circulated freely between the sub-continent and the Tibetan plateau. Pilgrims would visit Kailash-Mansarovar through the Ladakh road without any hindrance. There was even an Indian principality called Minsar at the bottom of the Kailash. With the invasion of Tibet in 1950, India lost a peaceful frontier. India lost a friendly neighbour. The frontier became a 'disputed' border. This is the tragedy. All because 'frontier' or 'buffer' had a 'colonialist' connotation according to Nehru; he did not want to be seen as an imperialist and hence did not intervene in 1950. Mao had no such scruples when he 'liberated' Tibet.
- Amarnath imbroglio: Should the Himalayas be de-Sanskritized? by Shashi Shekhar Toshkhani on July 30, 2008
This concept of Amriteshwara Shiva is unique to Kashmir Shaivism, but strikes a chord of deep devotion in every Hindu heart. But for the fanatics who want to impose on Kashmir an exclusivist Islamic order, this is an anathema. Politically, this is a corollary to the demand to retain the current Muslim-majority character of Kashmir ; a point on which all political parties in the Valley, Peoples Democratic Party, National Conference and even Congress, are one. This was why Sheikh Abdullah arm-twisted Jawaharlal Nehru to include Article 370 in the Constitution.
From Kailash Mansarovar to Panchakedars to Amarnath, Shiva reigns supreme in the whole inner Himalayan region as the most beloved deity, with Devi dominating the outer Himalayas from Kamakhya in Assam to Vaishnodevi in Jammu . Hindus have already lost Kailash to the Chinese because of Mr. Nehru’s ill-conceived foreign policy. Will they now allow Amarnath to be lost to the Islamists? If that happens the whole of the Indian Himalayas will be de-Sanskritized and literally become Hindukush (“Hindu-killer”). History is calling upon us to decide if we will let that happen.
- Nehru disregard for Bharatiya (misnomer: Indian) languages
- Let us now praise famous men Part 2 by Rajeev Srinivasan on September 17, 1999
- Nehru: India's last English PM!, by D P Sinha, The Observer on November 12 1997
Two questions can be asked here. First, that if Nehru was such an ardent fan of the British life-style, why did he, in the first place, participate in a movement against the British? Secondly, what made him such a British enthusiast?
Jawaharlal Nehru was an ambitious father's ultra ambitious son. He had a dream. A dream of leading an independent India as its very first Prime Minister. To make his dreams a reality Nehru did what was the need of the hour. He opposed the British rule, even went to jail.
Yet throughout all this, at a deep, more personal level, Nehru continued to experience a humbling respect and love for the British culture. Upon analysis of Jawaharlal Nehru's behaviour it is clear that to him there was no apparent conflict between love for all things English and an active struggle against the English.
For a deeper understanding we need to go back further. In the early years of 19th century, in East India Company, there was a debate on the education policy for Indians.
While some believed that Indians should be formally instructed in their native language of Sanskrit and Persian, the public instructions committee headed by Lord Macaulay recommended that Indians should be taught in the western traditions and the medium of instruction should be English.
Macaulay wrote that the aim of English education is "to create a class who would act as interpreters between us and the millions we govern, a class of Indians in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect".
East India Company adopted Macaulay's suggestions and teaching in English language began in India.
Merely hundred years later, India was abound with 'black British' who were only by 'blood and colour' Indians.
Apart from their 'blood and colour' nothing in them remained Indian.
No wonder this breed of Indians feel such pride in calling themselves 'English'.
- Nehru and Nepotism
- Nehru's past and Relationships
- Nehru's definition of Secularism
- Nehru fanned Separatist and Secessionist outlook
- Corruption: All in the name of the Nehru Gandhi Family, by A. Surya Prakash
Most of the central and state government programmes and schemes and national and state-level institutions which run on public money have been named after three members of the Nehru-Gandhi family. The Congress Party’s desire to credit every social sector programme, every national institution and every national achievement to these three individuals -Rajiv Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru – has reached vulgar proportions, specially after the Congress-led UPA came to power in 2004.
- Decision to remove Vajpayee's photographs criticised by Special Correspondent, Hindu on July 27, 2004
The Bharatiya Janata Party general secretary, Arun Jaitley, has strongly disapproved of the Government's reported move to remove all photographs of former the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, from the sky boards on national highways being built under the National Highways Development Project.
"This is part of a series of actions taken by the United Progressive Alliance Government that smacks of arrogance and intolerance," Mr. Jaitley said, adding that this was "another bad precedence for the future," the first being the sacking of Governors appointed by the previous regime. Such an attitude would also encourage future governments to remove names and photographs of leaders of rival parties from various hoardings and signboards.
The BJP sees the removal of Mr. Vajpayee's photographs as yet another signal that the Government is deliberately provoking the Opposition and is on "a confrontationist path."
Mr. Jaitley said that it was not right to replace Mr. Vajpayee's photographs with that of the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and then, at a future date, some new government might again change them.
- Needed: photos of Sonia, PM every 25 km of national highway by Gunjan Pradhan Sinha
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has floated a proposal to erect billboards with pictures of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi every 25 km on all National Highways under it.
The 20x10-ft boards will carry a picture of the two leaders on both sides of the road — clearly a move to highlight the UPA effort in pushing the National Highways Development Programme (NHDP).
The double-side boards are expected to cost roughly Rs 4 lakh each, according to industry estimates. In case of projects involving four-laning of say 1,000 km, the developer will have to pay Rs 1.6 crore for setting up 40 such boards. During the concession period of 20 or 30 years as fixed under the contract, the onus of maintaining these boards will be on the private developer.
- Kamraj vs Gandhi Dynasty by Premendra Agrawal
- India’s Political Amnesia and The Nehru – Gandhi Clan’s Incompetence by Chakra News
- Who was the Brave Army Officer Who “Slapped” Nehru In Front of Everyone?!
It was post Independence days, when our constitution was being written, when our country had own Government and India was planning to lay out defence strategy for the country. Many of the government members and Army wanted to select the best Indian commander and most experienced person as the Army Chief.
But Nehru had different plans, immediately after India got independence, Nehru without consulting anyone appointed General Rob Lockhart, a British man as the Chief in commander of the Indian Army. Most people were shocked to know that Nehru selected a British Man after fighting for independence for over 200 years! Major General A A ‘Jick’ Rudra of the Indian Army was completely upset with the decision.
One day Maj. Lockhart met Nehru with a strategic plan and proposed many government directive defence policies for the country. He placed it on the table and explained the point to PM Nehru. After a while Maj. Lockhart walked out of the room and met A A Jick Rudra, Maj. Lockhart looked shell shocked and stunned. When asked what happened…..
He said ‘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!
Nehru wanted to scrap the Indian Army…What an Irony!
One year after the incident the Kashmir crisis had increased and Gen Lockhart used to exchange ideas with the Gen Douglas Gracie who was commander in chief of Pakistan Army! There were many infiltrations along the border which Lockhart knew and took no action. But Maj. Cariappa had infact save the Indian army and Kashmir with his bold decisions. This information was later raised in the government with many people questioning the integrity of Gen Lockhart. Nehru finding no excuses had to question his pet chief, he asked Lockhart whether he knew about the crisis in Kashmir and what measures were taken….
For which Lockhart replied “Aghast, Mr Prime minister if you have to ask me that question, I have no business being the commander-in-chief of your forces. I know that there is a boat leaving Bombay in a few days, carrying British officers and their families to England. I shall be on leaving India soon!!!”
The next day emergency meeting was called to select the new Army Chief. Prime Minister Nehru chaired the meeting which was attended by the then Defence Minister Baldev Singh (YES MAN of Nehru), Maj Gen Nathu Singh Rathore, Maj Gen Cariappa and few defence expert. Every one knew that Gen Cariappa was the most deserving and wanted him to lead the army.
In the meeting Nehru started, “we should appoint a new Army Chie, as Gen. Lockhart had resigned from the post. I consider that it is better to appoint a British Man as the Army Chief since we do not have a capable and experienced Army man in our Country.”
Everybody in the meeting were silent. The army officers felt very humiliated and insulted by Nehru’s words. Def. Minister Baldev Singh immediately endorsed Nehru suggestion saying “Yes we do not have any capable Army man!”
But there was one man who stood and said “Sir, I have a point….You see Sir, we don’t have a man with enough experience to lead a nation too, so shouldn’t we appoint someone from Britain as the first PM of India?”…It was none other than Maj Gen Nathu Singh Rathore!!!
Suddenly there was pin drop silence in the room! This was a SLAP in the FACE OF NEHRU!!!
Annoyed Nehru interrupted and said “Are you saying that you are ready to be the first General of the Indian Army?”
Even though the officer got a golden opportunity he replied, “Sir, why me?? we have a very capable army officer, my senior Lt. Gen. Cariappa, who is the most deserving among us, do we need a better person than Gen Cariappa to guard our Country?, How could you say that our country do not have capable leaders?!!!
The entire room stood and applauded the suggestion made by Lt Gen Nathu Singh Rathore. India should thank Gen Rathore for giving us the first Gen and the best leader Field Marshall Cariappa as our Army General.
Nehru who could not recognise our own people, our own country’s potential wanted a British man as the Army General, there could not have been a bigger blunder than giving the country’s security in the hands of a foreigner!!!
- Womanizer Nehru
Legacy to Bureaucracy: Musings of an Indian Civil Servant. By VP Sawhney
When Mahavir Tyagi quipped at Nehru, "how come, wherever you soon get surrounded by women?" Looking straight with a beaming smile Nehru replied: Tum kyon jalte ho, un ko mard ki pehchan hai (why do you feel jealous, they know how to recognize the man)."
- Disastrous war with China and loss of Tibet and Aksai Chin due to Nehru's bloated ego
Legacy to Bureaucracy: Musings of an Indian Civil Servant. By VP Sawhney
Mahaveer Tyagi famously criticized Nehru's statement in the Indian Parliament in the prelude to the Sino-Indian War. Nehru was speaking in Parliament about the Chinese invasion. He referred to Aksai Chin and said, "not a blade of grass grows there." Mahavir Tyagi got up from his seat, and pointing towards his completely bald head remarked: "Nehru, not a blade of grass grows here too, but does this mean that my head should be chopped off?"
- 1962 India-China war: Jawaharlal Nehru's words pinch our hearts, says Kiren Rijiju
Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju on Sunday said former prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru's words in Parliament on the Chinese aggression in Ladakh and Arunachal had really pinched our hearts, and had demoralised our forces and the local people. "Participating in a debate in Parliament over the Chinese aggression, the then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru had said: "In those barren land and mountains of Ladakh and Arunachal, not even a blade of grass grows, why Parliament is wasting time," said Rijiju, adding that it is a reality that China took over the entire western part of Arunachal Pradesh, which was a part of Assam in 1962. The Chinese had reached Assam in the foothills of Arunachal Pradesh, and the then prime minister Nehru had stated, "'...my heart goes out to people of Assam', which amounted to surrendering of our territories to the Chinese," said Rijiju.
The Chinese went back on their own and declared a unilateral ceasefire, claimed Rijiju, adding: "This is a part of the history and we must come to term that if anything wrong has happened in history, we should accept it."
He said that he was not creating anything from his own figment of imagination, and he was only stating the facts, adding that the Congress, too, should not be intolerant about accepting something which is a fact. Arunachal people are the most patriotic. They remained solidly behind the nation despite so many Indian soldiers had lost their lives during the 1962 war. We continue to do that and I am proud of that," said Rijiju, a Member of Parliament from the Arunachal West constituency.
"If a former prime minister has made some kind of unsavoury, demoralising remarks, what is wrong in accepting that? My point is that history can't be changed. At same time, factual, historical and all kind of incidents must be brought before the nation. Our next generation has the right to know about the correct historical stories and incidents," he said.
"First Prime Minister of India Pandit Nehru, for whom I have the greatest respect, had caused a great heartburn to the people of Arunachal Pradesh," he added.
- Jawaharlal Nehru's in his Belief Infallibility - A Disaster to India and read this and this
Mohammed Ali Jinnah who propounded the theory that Moslems are a separate nation and so demanded the partition of India for creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan (and Bangladesh) as a national home for the subcontinent’s Muslims proposed an exchange of population between Hindu Indiai and Islamic Pakistan. Dr. B R Ambedkar in his masterly analysis of the Muslim problem of India in his book, “Pakistan of Partition of India”, also advocated the exchange of minority population and cited the example of the exchange of Muslim and Christian populations in the Balkans of Europe on the dissolution in 1919 of the Ottoman Turkish empire. The exchange of population was supervised by the League of Nations after the first World War and thus put an end to the Muslim problem in non- Muslim Balkan states.
Here in India, Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi opposed the exchange of populations. Both said they did not accept the two nation theory, but agreed to divide India on the basis of religion! In the event, Islamic Pakistan ethnically cleansed Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists from that country and the Islamic state of Bangladesh is also doing the same thing in steps, but here in India the Muslims who rioted for Pakistan, were affectionately patronized by Nehru (and his Dynasty) and also Mahatma Gandhi. The 9% of Muslim population in India in 1947 has gone upto 13.4% according to census 2001 of India and over 15% according to Sachar Committee Report. Incidentally, Js Rajender Sachar, Manmoham Singh,Kuldip Nayar as well as Jyoti Basu and Budhadev Bhattacharji to mention a few. ‘Secular’ warriors have fled from the Islamic state of Pakistan in 1947 to escape massacre or forced conversion.
Sri Yuvaraj Karan, a former IAS Officer, who is also one of the escapees from Pakistan (so beloved of Rajender Sachar, I K Gujral, Manmohan Singh and Company) has written a book, ‘Understanding Partition’ published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. When he was at eh IAS Training Institute in Dehradun, in the first batch IAS trainees, Jawaharlal Nehru was invited to address them. At the end of Sri Nehru’s self-confident an d all-knowing address; Sri Yuvraj whose mind was particularly exercised for the continued stay in India of the leaders of the Muslim League who had brought about partition of India and fought for the establishment of Pakistan, reacted to the observations made by Jawaharlal Nehru and provoked a dialogue.
Here it is: Y Krishna (YK) : Well, Sir, those who have brought about Partition have been left behind in the partitioned India. The Muslim League had declared that the Hindus an d Muslims were two nations and had asked for partition because they feared that the Muslim, being a minority, would suffer oppression and atrocities at the hands of he Hindu majority. Pakistan was to be their homeland where they could live in freedom from the tyranny of the non-Muslim majority. But lo! And behold! The vast majority of the Muslims of U.P, Bihar, Central Provinces, Bombay, etc. remained behind in India and did not migrate to the homeland (Pakistan) created for them. We never accepted the two-nation theory though we were driven to accept Partition to avoid bloodshed and to achieve Independence.
Prime Minister (P M): We are not a communal State. The Muslims, who have decided to stay in India, are as much honouable citizens of the country as the members of the majority community. They cannot be victimized in the new situation for their actions and conduct before and at the time of Partition. We cannot and must not live in the past.
YK: True sir, but the immense suffering the people have undergone and the problems; only it has created new ones.
Nehru: you are too young to understand. The overwhelming majority of the Indian Muslims are politically backward and have been misled by the pernicious and poisonous propaganda of the Muslim League. So it will be wrong to treat the vast majority of Indian Muslims as being responsible for the ills of our country.
YK: True sir, the vast majority has been misled by the two-nation theory. But this does not absolve the Muslim League leadership; they are the authors of Partition. And yet, the majority of this leadership has also stayed back in India.. The Muslims of Pakistan , West Punjab, NWFP, Sindh and Baluchistan, as such, never wanted or asked for Pakistan. In fact, they did not need to. There was a pause and silence for a couple of minutes. The Raja of Mahamudabad, Begum Aizaz Rasul, Raja of Pirpur, Maulana Hasrat Mohanti etc., from U P, Syed Hussain Imam from Bihar, M .Mod. Ismail from Madras etc., to name a few of the host of Muslim League leaders, have stayed back in India though they had actively worked for the creation of Pakistan as the homeland for the Indian Muslims. They are not an iota of justification for such leaders being allowed to stay in India after having got the country partitioned on the basis of the two -nation theory. They ought to have gone to the homeland they asked for and obtained.
There was again a pause P M Nehru’s face was flushed. After a brief silence, he resumed
Nehru: we cannot abandon the nationalist Muslims who had fought an d sacrificed for India’s Independence.
YK: But the Congress has already abandoned the Khidmatgars led by the Frontier Gandhi.
Nehru: This was a most decision forced on us by the geo-political realities.
YK: I am not sure of the loyalty of the socalled nationalist Muslims after the creation of Pakistan, considering the speeches (mischievous and rabble rousing) of the national Muslim leaders (those who were opposed to Partition) like Dr Syed Mahmud, Maulana Hafizur Rahman (of Jamiat-ul-ulema-e-Hind) etc., at the Lucknow conference of Mussalman, Hind (Dec 1947).
Nehru: This is false, mischievous, a canard intended to defame and denigrate the nationalist Muslims who have played a glorious role in India’ Independence.
YK: The P M must be correct on this point. I have perhaps been wrongly informed. But the basic fact remains that the Muslim League leaders and worked from Western UP – Meerut, Moradabad, Aligarh, saharanpur, etc -organised the riots in Rawalpindi in March, 1947 which set the Punjab ablaze. It was not the work of the local Muslims of Rawalpindi in the initial stages but of the Muslim League leaders from UP. Is it also not shocking that the Muslim League leaders of Rampur State in UP should have launched a violent agitation by setting on fire several government buildings demanding accession of the Rampur State of Pakistan?
The face of the Prime Minister turned red in anger. He started puffing at this silver cigarette-holder.
At this point I had a very strong urge to recall the advice PM Nehru had given to the Kashmiri Pandits in 1945 at a meeting in Sopore in the Kashmir Valley thta if non-Muslims wanted to lie in Kashmir, they should join the National Conference (which was overwhelmingly a Muslim party) or bid good-bye to the country (Kashmir). But sensing the mood of the Prime Minister I was sullen and kept quiet. The Principal of the Training School M J Desai, ICS was visibly feeling uncomfortable and edgy. As there was palpable tension in the atmosphere and the Prime Minister Nehru was silent and red faced, the Principal asked for eh dinner bell to be rung. This relieved the tension in all of us. We collected our plates and made a bee-line for the dining table... (Readers would note how indifferent if not hostile Sri Nehru was to the plight of Hindus even after partition. -Ed)
- A Dialogue With Prime Minister Nehru
Yuvraj Krishan was one of the first officers to be selected for the IAS in 1948. While on probation at Metcalfe House in Delhi, the new recruits hosted Jawaharlal Nehru. Krishan cornered the prime minister and questioned him.
Background to the Dialogue
It was a hot summer evening in 1948. The Indian Administrative Service (LA.S.) Probationers of the first batch recruited through the competitive examination and undergoing training in the I.A.S. Training School, in what was then known as the Metcalfe House in Old Delhi, were playing host to the Prime Minister invited to meet the Probationer Officers were waiting expectantly on the open grassy lawns of the Metcalfe House grounds.
The Prime Minister arrived at about 6.30 P.M. accompanied by his Secretary K. Ram, I.C.S.
After exchange of greetings, the Prime Minister expressed anguish at the bloodshed and the mass migration that had attended Partition and Independence of India. A war was going on between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. The two Governments were struggling with the problems of refugees and their rehabilitation. Even though the migration of population by that time had become a trickle, there was acute tension between India and Pakistan and there was absence of cordial relations between the Muslim and the non-Muslim population of the two countries. The Indian nation was still in the throes of the trauma that accompanied Partition.
Having been uprooted from my home in Lahore, Pakistan, I had been pondering a lot on what the nation and I had gone through. My mind was particularly exercised by the continued stay in India of the leaders of the Muslim League who had brought about Partition and had worked for the establishment of Pakistan. This made me react to the observations made by the Prime Minister and provoked a dialogue.
The Dialogue:
Y. KRISHAN (Y.K.) Probationer : Well sir, those who have brought about Partition have been left behind in the partitioned India. The Muslim League had declared that the Hindus and Muslims were two nations and had asked for partition because they feared that the Muslims, being a minority, would suffer oppression and atrocities at the hands of the Hindu majority. Pakistan was to be their homeland where they could live in freedom from tne tyranny of the non-Muslim majority. But lo! and behold! the vast majority of the Muslims of U.P., Bihar, Central Provinces, Bombay, etc. remained behind in India and did not migrate to the homeland (Pakistan) created for them.
P.M.: We never accepted the two-nation theory though we were driven to accept Partition to avoid bloodshed and to achieve independence. We are not a communal State. The Muslims, who have decided to stay in India, are as much honourable citizens of the country as the members of the majority community. They cannot be victimised in the riew situation for their actions and conduct before and at the time of Partition.
We connot and must not live in the past.
Y.K.: True sir, but the immense suffering the people have undergone and the problems the country is facing are the direct result of the past, of the two-nation theory. In fact, Partition has solved no problems; only it has created new ones.
P.M. : You are too young to understand.
The overwhelming majority of the Indian Muslims are politically backward and have been misled by the pernicious and poisonous propaganda of the Muslim League. So it will be wrong to treat the vast majority of Indian Muslims as being responsible for the ills of our country.
Y.K.: True sir, the vast majority has been misled by the two-nation theory. But this does not absolve the Muslim League leadership: they are the authors* of Partition. And yet, the majority of this leadership has also stayed back in India. The Muslims of Pakistan, West Punjab, N.W.F.P.,Sind and Baluchistan, as such, never wanted or asked for Pakistan. In fact, they did not need to.
There was a pause and silence for a couple of, minutes.
Y.K.: The Raja of Mahamudabad, Begum Aizaz Rasul, Raja of Pirpur, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, etc. from U.P., Syed Hossain Imam from Bihar, M. Mohd. Ismail from Madras, etc., to name a few of the host of Muslim League leaders, have stayed back in India though they had actively worked for the creation of Pakistan as the homeland for the Indian Muslims. There is not an iota of justification for such leaders being allowed to stay in India after having got the country partitioned on the basis of the two-nation theory. They ought to have gone to the homeland they asked for and obtained.
There was again a pause.
P.M. Nehru's face was flushed. After a brief silence, he resumed.
P.M. : We cannot abandon the nationalist Muslims who had fought and sacrificed for India's Independence.
Y.K. : But the Congress has already abandoned the true nationalist Muslims, the Khudai Khidmatgars led by the Frontier Gandhi.
P.M. : This was a most painful decision forced on us by the geo-political realities.
Y.K. : I am not sure of the loyalty of the so-called nationalist Muslims after the creation of Pakistan, considering the speeches, ('mischievous and rabble rousing) of the nationalist Muslim leaders (those who were opposed to Partition) like Dr. Syed Mahmud, Maulana Hafizur Rahman (of Jamiat-ul-ulema-e-Hind) etc. at the Lucknow conference of Mussalman.i.Hind'l (Dec. 1947).
P.M. : This is false, mischievous, a canard intended to defame and denigrate the nationalist Muslims who have played a glorious role in India's Independence.
Y.K. : The P.M. must be correct on this point. I have perhaps been wrongly informed. But the basic fact remains that the Muslim League leaders and workers from Western U.P.-Meerut, Moradabad, Aligarh, Saharanpur, etc. organised the riots in Rawalpindi in March, 1947 which set the Punjab ablaze. It was not the work of the local Muslims of Rawalpindi in the initial stages but of the Muslim League leaders from U.P. Is it also not shocking that the Muslim League leaders of Rampur State in U.P. should have launched a violent agitation by setting on fire several Government buildings demanding accession of the Rampur State to Pakistan?
The face of the Prime Minister turned red in anger. He started puffing at his silver cigarette-holder.
At this point I had a very strong urge to recall the advice P.M. Nehru had given to the Kashmiri Pandits in 1945 at a meeting in Sopore in the Kashmir Valley that if non-Muslims wanted to live in Kashmir, they should join the National Conference (which was overwhelmingly a Muslim party) or bid good-bye to the country (Kashmir). But sensing the mood of the Prime Minister I was sullen and kept quiet.
The Principal of the Training School M.J. Desai, I.C.S. was visibly feeling uncomfortable and edgy. As there was palpable tension in the atmosphere and Prime Minister Nehru was silent and red faced, the Principal asked for the dinner bell to be rung. This relieved the tension in all of us. We collected our plates and made a bee-line for the dining table.
Post Script:
In retrospect the author believes that if those Muslim League leaders, who had actively worked for the division of the country and the creation of Pakistan on the basis of the two-nation theory and who did not migrate to Pakistan, had publicly denounced the two-nation theory, admitted that the Pirpur Report was false and that the creation of Pakistan was against the interests of the Indian Muslims, this would have gone a long way to heal the wounds of Partition, and promoted reconciliation between the Hindus and Muslims. This would also have softened the hostile Hindu Muslim relations which, unfortunately, continue to be haunted by the ghost of Partition.
NOTES & REFERENCES
1. The Statesmen, New Delhi Dec. 28, 1947.
2. P.N. Bazaz, Struggle for Freedom of Kashmir, New Delhi, 1954, p. 248.
Do not copy content from this page. You may quote an excerpt from this article/post but please do put a reference.
Posts
