Nehru, not progeny, is the problem, Mr Guha! – Punarvasu Parekh

Jawaharlal Nehru was the archetypical Indian brown sahib

IconA society divided and unsure of itself, an economy grossly performing far below its potential for decades, a large but powerless nation in the world, a country at odds with its own roots—that is the legacy Nehru left, for which we are now expected to feel suitably indebted. – Punarvasu Parekh

President Ram Nath Kovind’s pointed omission of Jawaharlal Nehru and his progeny in his first presidential speech to parliamentarians has not gone down well with Congressmen and other secularists. Congressmen have availed of this opportunity to exhibit once again their loyalty to their first family, while some secularists have sought to remind us of Nehru’s greatness, such as it was. Court historian Ramachandra Guha  (“Rescue Nehru from his descendants”, The Hindustan Times, 30 July 2017) argues that Nehru’s legacy should be separated from mistakes and misdeeds of his progeny and respected properly with due gratefulness.

Essentially, the argument is that “Nehru contributed enormously to the making of modern India, by promoting universal adult franchise, linguistic and religious pluralism, and modern science. However, the actions of his descendants have deeply damaged his reputation.”

Guha is wrong on both the counts. Nehru’s contribution to the modern India is largely negative, and his descendants have only followed the lead given by him, though in a more crass and cynical manner.

Nehru’s biggest failure was his inability to appreciate the role played by Hinduism in defining and unifying India. He borrowed, through Marx, the colonial view of Indian society, Indian history and Indian civilisation. According to this view, Indian society is a loose conglomeration of disparate groups divided along every conceivable line (caste, community, ethnicity, language, religion, wealth and income, to mention a few) which is struggling to evolve some principle of unity. For him, this ancient land with a glorious civilisation running through millennia was a “nation in the making”. India’s history, according to this view, is a record of its conquest by successive groups of marauding invaders. To Nehru, Indian civilisation, at least at practical level, was a hotchpotch of irrational superstitions, empty rituals and meaningless metaphysics.

This view of India (now glibly flaunted as Idea of India) is not unexpected in a man who said that “by education I am an Englishman, by views an internationalist, by culture a Muslim and I am a Hindu only by accident of birth.” Nehru failed to see the cultural and spiritual unity reigning supreme over social divisions, a unity which makes it imperative to read Indian history as a vast and variegated narrative of a single people through the ages, and Indian civilisation as an elastic but unbreakable bond that held its people together despite their mind-boggling social diversity. No wonder he came to the conclusion that “to talk of Hindu culture would injure India’s interest. The ideology of Hindu Dharma is completely out of tune with present times and if it took roots in India it would smash the country to pieces.”

This suspicion of and disdain for everything that was Hindu propelled him to strenuously oppose India’s return to her roots after independence, saying that he did not want India to become a “Hindu Pakistan”, whereas, in fact, it was he who behaved like a Muslim monarch ruling over a Hindu kingdom.

Nehru is said to have promoted pluralism through secularism. However, Nehru’s secularism was an alien concept borrowed from the West, divorced from Indian tradition of respect for other viewpoints. Owing to his defective view of Indian society, history and civilisation (not to mention vote bank politics), secularism turned into a united front of anti-Hindu ideologies (Islam, Christianity, Communism) and became a powerful tool to suppress Hindu aspirations.

Nehru’s admirers project him as a world class visionary. They should explain why his foreign policy was such a disaster. His handling of the challenges posed by Pakistan and China was inept, to put it mildly. His quest for glory on the global stage led him to set up a talking shop of beggars better known as the Non-Aligned Movement and isolated India from countries that could and would have helped her in areas that mattered. It was no surprise that after four decades of that foreign policy, India stood friendless, voiceless and insignificant in the comity of nations.

As the late Girilal Jain observed so perceptively in his The Hindu Phenomenon, under Nehru’s influence we mis-defined the nature of the Indian state on several fronts. “Nehru saw himself as an arbiter between rival camps in the Cold War in disregard of the horror that was communism, just as he saw himself as an arbiter between Hindus and Muslims in the country. Obviously, the cost on both counts has been quite heavy. If non-alignment has meant isolation of India from true centres of power in our era, secularism has meant the moral disarmament of Hindus. Pakistan and China could not have posed the threat they have to our security if we had made common cause with the West and the Muslim problem would not have remained wholly unresolved if we had not mis-defined the nature of the Indian state”. (p.13)

Modi’s India is struggling to correct that mistake, however clumsily and ineptly, and that has rattled the secularist class.

Guha suggests that universal adult suffrage was Nehru’s gift to India. That is like suggesting that the sun rises because the cock crows. Nehruvians have long flaunted their democratic credentials. But their record is one of nepotism and lust for power. Their stranglehold on Congress has vitiated our polity.

The manner in which Nehru managed to sideline Sardar Patel to become Congress president in 1930 and prime minister in 1946 should put paid to his love for democracy. No doubt as prime minister he showed respect to his party colleagues, but then they were stalwarts in their own right, having risen from the ranks and passed through the crucible of the freedom struggle. They did not owe their rise and survival in politics to Nehru’s sufferance. Also, Nehru never missed an opportunity to cut his potential rivals to size. Witness the Kamraj Plan.

Nehru’s social policies have proved divisive and disruptive. Even at the height of his popularity, this votary of modernity did not oppose caste-based reservations. Nor did he dare touch the Muslim personal law while driving the Hindu code bill. Like an ordinary politician, he chose the line of least resistance. That is the not the mark of a visionary.

Nehru nurtured a deep hostility to private enterprise. In an effort to control this “evil”, he handed over the economy to control-minded planners and corrupt bureaucrats. The planned economy stifled innovation, discouraged enterprise and punished initiative.

Many people credit him with promoting science and scientific temper, but the bureaucratic state and restrictive policies suffocated growth and prompted migration of people of talent, either in industry or science. Indians prospered everywhere except in India, and Nobel Prize in Science was won by Indians who had left the country for good years ago to pursue research.

Nehru’s economic policies inspired by half-baked Fabian socialism kept the country poor, backward and underdeveloped in spite of a large, young and highly talented population, vast territory, rich mineral resources and willingness of other countries to help and cooperate. Followed faithfully for four decades, they drove the country to the brink of default on international loans.

It is not an accident that the country embarked on a high-growth path only after Nehruvian policies were dumped. And, that course correction is still hobbled by two pillars of Nehru’s approach to economic problems: state control and populism (mai-bap sarkar).

Nehru created an interventionist state which claimed to know better than the people what was good for them and sought to mould society, economy and polity in a pre-determined structure. The project was bound to fail since the conceived structure was anti-growth and alien.

The Babri mosque of Nehruvian edifice had three domes: secularism, socialism and non-alignment. Socialism kept us poor and backward in the name of growth with social justice. Secularism kept us divided and distrustful of each other in the name of communal amity. Non-alignment rendered us ineffective and friendless in the comity of nations. A society divided and unsure of itself, an economy grossly performing far below its potential for decades, a large but powerless nation in the world, a country at odds with its own roots—that is the legacy Nehru left, for which we are now expected to feel suitably indebted.

India cannot regain its rightful place in the world until Nehru’s legacy is undone and forgotten. That process has been on for some time now. President Kovind deserves to be complimented for according formal recognition to it.

» Punarvasu Parekh is an independent senior journalist in Mumbai.

Jawaharlal Nehru and Hindi Chini Bai Bai


J&K’s Accession: An insider’s account – Punarvasu Parekh

Pandit Ram Chandra Kak & Maharaja Hari Singh
JournalistThe failure of the Indian state to find a solution to the J&K dispute is rooted in its refusal to face the facts. – Punarvasu Parekh

“What Sheikh Abdullah was really gambling for … was an independent principality whose continued existence would be guaranteed by the Indian armed forces and whose solvency was secured by the Indian treasury. There was, however, no idea of a quid pro quo from his side. He did not expect to be called to account either in respect of the internal administration of the state or the utilization of funds supplied to him by the government of India.”

How prophetic these words penned way back in 1955 have been! As Indian soldiers shed their blood to protect J&K from troublemakers of all sorts and as the Indian treasury bleeds to keep it solvent, only to be greeted by chants of “Azadi” from stone-pelting mobs and demand for “greater autonomy” from local sundries, we realize how farsighted the author was in warning us that “Sheikh Abdullah stood only for his own aggrandizement and had no affection for India and no use for her except to the extent she sub-served his ends.” The Abdullah tribe has multiplied several times since then, but its genes and DNAs remain unchanged.

The author Pandit Ram Chandra Kak was the prime minister of princely state of Jammu & Kashmir during the period leading up to the state’s accession to India in October 1947. He left behind a document that records the devious political games played to transfer authority over this Hindu-Buddhist kingdom to Muslims, specifically to Sheikh Abdullah.

Radha Rajan is the editor of Vigil OnlineUnsurprisingly, the document is barely known in “secular” India; its only known public copy is in UK. In a monumental piece of investigative journalism, Radha Rajan presents this document in full, along with her analysis of the communal political game played by Congress leadership in general and Nehru and Gandhi in particular, which has converted Kashmir into a festering sore in Indian polity.

Pandit Kak’s document traverses familiar ground, though it does highlight some less known facts. Its chief merit consists in providing a clear and consistent exposition of the dilemma faced by the State of J&K over accession to India on the eve of independence, by a perceptive patriotic powerful insider who was privy to overt happenings as well as covert machinations in the state, who was in the centre of the storm facing winds blowing from all directions. It tells us why things went the way they did and how India could have averted the current impasse. From the document, Pandit Kak emerges as a man of learning and character, a sterling patriot who had the courage to suffer for his convictions.

In her comments on the selected passages from the document, Radha Rajan shows that what happened in J&K was not accidental, but a logical culmination of the attitudes and policies consciously adopted by Gandhi, Nehru and Congress towards princely states, especially those with Hindu rulers.

The question of accession to India came up before J&K twice in less than a year, though in very different circumstances. Its decision on both the occasions was the same, but for different reasons. Then again, Prime Minister Kak and Maharaja Hari Singh concurred in their conclusion, but not for identical reasons.

Late in 1946, the state was sounded out by the Government of India on the accession to India after the Cabinet Mission had completed its consultations with Government of India and Indian leaders in Delhi. At that time, partition was not on the horizon except as a remote contingency and the accession was envisaged only to the newly-to-be-created Dominion of India.

Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru

Pandit Kak tells us that as regards welding India into a single unit, he was not opposed to accession pure and simple. But there was a problem: Sheikh Abdullah, Congress leaders’ (especially Nehru’s) complete identification with him and their refusal to see any other point of view than his.

Sheikh Abdullah started his political career in 1931 as one of the two protagonists of Muslim Conference, an unabashed self-professed communal body. Later he fell out with the other protagonist Ch. Ghulam Abbas and set up his own outfit National Conference. As Ghulam Abbas managed to get close to Jinnah and Muslim League, Sheikh Abdullah approached Pundit Nehru for support. This he received in ample measure and soon he found himself a leading luminary in Congress firmament and President of All India States’ Peoples Conference.

While paying lip service to Congress ideals, Abdullah never forgot his original aim and ambition: absolute control over the state. With the power and prestige of Congress behind him, he started resorting to coercion and bullying against those who disagreed with him, including dissident Muslim groups. Some residents of Srinagar were for years unable to visit other parts of the town for fear of harassment. A maulavi who favoured Muslim Conference was prevented from preaching at the mosque where he and his forefathers had preached for generations before. Hindus began to live in perpetual fear. During the so-called Quit Kashmir agitation in 1946, thousands-strong mobs would surround houses of respectable persons for hours together, terrorise inmates and hurl stones and filthy abuses not sparing women folk of the house. For this reason, he was arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to three years of imprisonment by the state administration.

This was the man backed to the hilt by Congress and its leaders right from the beginning. Nehru, Maulana Azad, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and others visited Kashmir and participated in deliberations and demonstrations of National Conference, which often culminated in violence. After Sheikh Abdullah’s arrest Pundit Nehru insisted on visiting Srinagar despite being told that his visit would be most undesirable in the prevailing circumstances. Nehru was detained in the Dak Bangalow at Muzaffarabad, provided all the facilities possible and the state arranged for his return to Delhi when he so decided. Indeed, after a meeting with Sardar Patel in Mumbai where Gandhi also was present, Pandit Kak facilitated Nehru’s visit to Srinagar in July 1946. Yet, it seems, Nehru never forgave Maharaja and Pandit Kak for his detention.

Against this background, it is not surprising that the decisive factor which influenced Pandit Kak in rejecting accession was the attitude of the Indian National Congress as regards the affairs of the state.

Radha Rajan points out that in the attitude of the Indian National Congress towards princely states, there was nothing peculiar to J&K. It is strange but true that Congress under Gandhi who reached out to the likes of Ali brothers, Muslim League, Jinnah and even Britishers nurtured undisguised hostility towards princely states and sought to undermine them on every conceivable occasion. J&K is the best example to show that this hostility has cost the country dearly.

The issue of accession came up again on the eve of independence when partition had been agreed upon and princely states, which were to regain sovereignty after the lapse of the British paramountcy, were advised to join either India or Pakistan.

J&K again found itself on the horns of a dilemma. It was Jinnah or Nehru-backed Abdullah. Lord Mountbatten told Pandit Kak “you must consider your geographical position, your political situation and composition of your population and then decide.” Pandit Kak rejoined “that means you advise us to accede to Pakistan. It is not possible for us to do that. And since that is so, we cannot accede to India.”

India was divided on communal lines and the only rational course of action for any state before deciding on accession was to ascertain whether its people would support the accession. And with 76 per cent Muslim population, J&K could not be sure of the support of its people if it acceded to India. Accession to India was also hobbled by Congress’s infatuation with Sheikh Abdullah. Sheikh Abdullah was in prison at the time of independence. Top Congress leaders were insisting not merely that he be released forthwith, but also that a new constitution be drafted for the state with their advice and power transferred to Sheikh Abdullah. Accession to Pakistan was ruled out because Pandit Kak had no illusions about the nature of Islamic state that was coming up. In other words, Kashmir would not accede to Pakistan and could not accede to India.

Pandit Kak met Jinnah who advised him to join Pakistan and offered favourable terms. However, when Jinnah was told that J&K’s decision not to accede was final, he said so long as the state did not accede to India he would not mind if it did not accede to Pakistan. Of course, he had no intention of honouring this assurance. Less than ten weeks after its formation, Pakistan invaded J&K.

From Government of India side, V. P. Menon, secretary, Ministry of States, had a lengthy discussion with Pandit Kak in Delhi and it was decided that Menon would pay a visit to Srinagar after 15 August 1947 to discuss the future course of action. Pandit Kak, therefore, resolved that under the given circumstances, it would be ideal for all stakeholders if J&K became an independent state, maintaining good relations with India and Pakistan.

Maharaja Hari Singh came to the same conclusion, though for more grandiose, if irrational, reasons. He was dreaming not just of remaining independent, but also of ruling over a larger territory. Fuelling his ambitions was Swami Sant Dev, part of the assortment of swamis, gurus, astrologers and others claiming direct communion with the supernatural collected by Maharaja Hari Singh’s uncle and predecessor Maharaja Pratap Singh. Such was the influence acquired by the Swami on Maharaja that even Pundit Nehru paid him a visit when he came to Kashmir in 1946.

For all his supposed spirituality, the Swami did not neglect the mundane. He was keen to earn jobs, contracts and other favours for his large but non-descript followers and constantly made suggestions to the administration on behalf of his cronies. On most of the occasions, Pandit Kak found it hard to oblige him. The enraged Swami started looking for an opportunity to get rid of the “obstinate” prime minister.

The opportunity came when accession became a live issue. The Maharaja was convinced that after the departure of the British, with the potency of Swami’s supernatural powers, he would be able to extend his rule to new areas. In June 1947, he met with rulers of some adjoining princely states and planned a federation of J&K and some areas now in Himachal Pradesh. When Maharaja Hari Singh sought Pandit Kak’s opinion about his plan, the latter explained to him that it was a futile and impracticable idea; it was utterly unrealistic to imagine that forces which had compelled the British to leave India would allow the creation of a new empire in their midst.

Neither Maharaja nor Swami forgave Pandit Kak for this candid advice, the cold douche he administered to their towering aspirations. Machinations started to remove him from the office. Matters reached Sardar Patel who asked Pandit Kak to convey to the Maharaja that in those crucial days it was essential that the Maharaja and his Prime Minister pulled together, and if that was not possible the situation must be brought to an end immediately. In other words, Maharaja Hari Singh had to choose between swami and Kak. Inevitably, he chose the Swami.

From that point, it was a downhill journey. On 11 August 1947, Maharaja gave Pandit Kak “permission to retire.” It was followed by decapitation of the entire administration. Top officers including Chief Secretary, Chief of the Army Staff, the IGP, Governor of Kashmir, Director of Civil Supplies, the Chief Engineer and several other important officers were removed and replaced by people of little or no experience. Sheikh Abdullah was released in September and lost no time in spreading his tentacles. These developments disheartened and alarmed the citizenry. The result was that when Pakistan attacked the state around 22nd October, it was in no position to counter it. Its helplessness was aggravated by perfidy of the British officers and treachery of the Muslim soldiery.

Pandit Kak had to pay a heavy personal price for his love of truth and candour. Charges of trumpery were forged against him and he was denied permission to leave the state even though he feared for his safety. This enabled Sheikh Abdullah to have his revenge when he paraded Kak and his elder brother through the streets of Srinagar with their hands tied and residents asked to shower shit and filth on them. Kak was pressured to give statement against Maharaja Hari Singh rule. But he did not utter a single word against the Maharaja. Kak later migrated to Kasauli.

The Hindustan Times

With the benefit of hindsight, we can say that Pandit Kak’s idea of an independent state of J&K was not viable. Pakistan would not let it remain in peace. Given its location, onset of the Cold War and China’s ambitions, it would have been a hotbed of international intrigues and a constant source of anxiety to India.

Ideally, J&K should have been fully integrated into India, just like hundreds of other states, small and big. What we now have is a halfway house, an arrangement in which India has the worst of both the worlds. For all nationalist objectives, J&K is an alien state—the steadfast refusal of Sunni Kashmiri politicians to the return of Kashmiri Pundits, establishment of sainik colonies or even temporary facilities for Amarnath pilgrims should clinch the issue. However, India has all the obligations regarding its security and solvency.

Pandit Kak’s document tells us how we could have avoided landing in this position of no rights and all responsibilities. India could and should have insisted that accession of J&K to India would be on the same terms as that of any other state. There was no insurmountable reason why it should be on a different basis. There was no need for India either to accept Mountbatten’s suggestion to make accession conditional upon a plebiscite or transfer power to Sheikh Abdullah or agree to a separate constituent assembly for the state. The Indian army was fighting the state’s battle and the simplest thing was to set up a military administration as was done subsequently in Hyderabad. By the time the military operations ended, a lot of things would have become clear. Then again, there was no need to allow Sheikh Abdullah to oust Maharaja Hari Singh and elect a new Head of State when the issue was being debated in the UN Security Council.

The failure of the Indian state to find a solution to the J&K dispute is rooted in its refusal to face the facts. The two-nation theory was false and pernicious, but after conceding Pakistan Congress lost moral right to oppose it. The country was divided on communal lines and the logic of partition has to be accepted. The existence of a large Muslim population in India does not alter the reality that after the secession of the Muslim component, what remained was and is Hindu Rashtra.

How could India expect to retain the valley of Kashmir with a 95 per cent Muslim population contiguous to the entirely Muslim province of NWFP? Replying to this poser in 1950 by Gordon Walker, then secretary of state for commonwealth relations, Pandit Kak pointed out that it was wrong to assume that the status of the valley affects only its residents and therefore they alone could decide its future. From time immemorial, Kashmir has been cradle to a vital corpus of Hindu thought and rituals. For that reason all the Hindus in India and beyond have a stake in the fate of Kashmir. Kashmir has always been a part of the Hindu Holy Land (punyabhoomi) and the question of handing it over to those who are hell-bent on destroying its Hindu ethos does not arise.

To sum up, reading this book would be a sobering, painful experience for any patriotic Indian. It narrates a sordid tale of historical vicissitudes and human weaknesses from which no player emerges unscathed. But truth, however unpalatable, must be faced. For truth alone liberates from bondage of fear, from folly and its consequences. That is the significance of Radha Rajan’s book.

»  Punarvasu Parekh is an independent journalist in Mumbai.
» Radha Rajan is a political commentator and animal rights activist in Chennai. Pandit Kak’s original document (PDF) is available on Radha Rajan’s website Vigil Online.

Jammu and Kashmir: Dilemma of accession: A historical analysis and lesson by Radha Rajan and Krishen Kak

       Published by Voice of India, New Delhi.  Pages 140, Maps 2, Price Rs 300 

Order from Voice of India or Amazon

New Book: Jammu and Kashmir Dilemma of Accession: A Historical Analysis and Lesson – Radha Rajan

Jammu and Kashmir Dilemma of Accession: A historical analysis and lesson by Radha Rajan

Radha Rajan is the editor of Vigil OnlineJammu and Kashmir Dilemma of Accession: A Historical Analysis and Lesson authored by Radha Rajan analyses Prime Minister Pandit Ramchandra Kak‘s first-hand narrative of the tragic events which shook the Kingdom of Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh and the Tibets in the critical years of 1946-47 when Pandit Ramchandra Kak was Prime Minister of the kingdom.

Prime Minister Kak describes the role played by the Indian National Congress in the affairs of Jammu and Kashmir from 1938 onwards and explains why the Kingdom could not accede to India in 1946 when the offer to accede was first made and again in 1947 when the Prime Minister came under pressure from several quarters to accede to Pakistan and to India. While V. P. Menon’s book for reasons unknown does not touch upon the critically important details which culminated in the tragedy of absolute power and total control over the entire kingdom being transferred to Sheikh Abdullah, it nevertheless provides critical insights and information which supplement Prime Minister Kak’s narrative; and read together, they provide all missing links in the official history of the tragedy.

Pandit Kak’s document is not available in India and while the original is with a family member, a copy of the original is housed in the India Office Library and Records, London. (A copy of the original is available on Radha Rajan’s website.)

Voice of India Publications through Radha Rajan’s book places this document for the first time since independence in the public domain in India.

ISBN 9789385485107, Voice of India, New Delhi,  Pages 140, Maps 2, Price Rs 300 

Order from Voice of India or Amazon

2 – Kashmir’s Jihadi Cauldron: Gandhi, not Nehru, lit the fire – Radha Rajan

Sheikh Abdullah & Jawaharlal Nehru

Radha Rajan is the editor of Vigil OnlineGandhi’s insistence that the territory of this bhumi belonged in equal measure … to Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Jews and Hindus, in that order, was taken seriously by post-independence Nehruvian secular India. Secular India stood by and watched Sheikh Abdullah’s son Farooq Abdullah implement his father’s Quit Kashmir slogan faithfully in letter and spirit from 1989 onwards. His son Omar Abdullah by declaring that he will not allow Kashmiri Pandits to be re-settled in a well-protected Pandit region of the Kashmir Valley and nor will he allow Sainik colonies to be set up in Srinagar has only stated his intention to keep it that way. … Amit Shah and Narendra Modi must put some steel in the spine of the government and work towards altering the arithmetic of religious demography which is influencing electoral politics in the jihadi state. The Kashmir Valley’s quota in Lok Sabha constituencies and state assembly constituencies is unnaturally weighted in favour of Kashmiri jihadis. – Radha Rajan

M.K. Gandhi in 1929Kashmir’s jihadi cauldron: Gandhi, not Nehru, lit the fire

This series which dismantles the edifice of Gandhi’s mahatmahood was necessitated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s unfortunate public exhortation to our armed forces fighting for their lives and the dignity of their uniforms to observe “restraint” in their operations in the Kashmir valley. Narendra Modi had just returned from his “pilgrimage” to South Africa and the atavistic connection between Kashmir and this Gandhi-bhakta was unmistakable considering Gandhi’s contempt for the army which too was detailed in Part 1.

The secessionist fire raging in Kashmir today was lit in 1946 by Gandhi who instigated Nehru to interfere in the affairs of the Hindu kingdom as if the Hindu nation were Gandhi’s patrimony and the Kingdom of Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh and Tibet (Riyasat-e Jammu wa Kashmir wa Ladakh wa Tibet ha) were Nehru’s fiefdom. Gandhi also forced the Congress Working Committee to position itself against Maharaja Hari Singh while simultaneously legitimising the opportunist rise of jihadi Sheikh Abdullah in the kingdom’s polity during the turbulent period following the failure of the Cabinet Mission; the Cabinet Mission failed because after enthusiastically welcoming the proposals for transfer of power by the Cabinet Mission within three days of its arrival in India, Gandhi proceeded to sabotage the Mission step by calibrated step. How Gandhi with the same cold calculating mind as Sheikh Abdullah sabotaged the Cabinet Mission is the theme of the next article in the series unravelling the Mahatma’s political game of dice as he gambled away the territory of the Hindu nation. From 1917, when Gandhi officially took charge of the party, the INC resembled the Kaurava Court as Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Nehru and J. B. Kripalanichose to look down and maintain silence while K. M. Munshi and Rajaji walked away from the court even as the freedom struggle culminated in Hindu genocide in 1946 quickly followed by vivisection of the Hindu nation in 1947. If Gandhi’s actions had consequences then the silence and inaction of Patel, Rajaji and Munshi had consequences too.

When we deconstruct Gandhi’s so-called freedom struggle and examine the milestones which defined the struggle, we know that every political decision that Gandhi made on behalf of the Congress vis-a-vis the Muslim League and on behalf of all Hindus of the country vis-a-vis the Muslims, and every political action and agitation that he launched ostensibly against the British government and against Hindus who defied his passive resistance benefited only and only the Muslims and Imperial London; Hindus got nothing. If anything, Hindus suffered irretrievable losses to their homes, homeland, life, property and their nation’s territory; in 1947, with India’s independence, Hindus lost political power too in Nehru’s India. Imperial London watched Gandhi in South Africa very closely and manoeuvred Gandhi’s towering political ambitions precisely in the wanted direction and when the time was right, they pinned the halo of Mahatma around his head and sent him back to India in July 1914. The timing of Gandhi’s return to India from South Africa says it all.

The British government’s farsighted move to paratroop Gandhi from South Africa to India yielded spectacular results; the nation was vivisected and Mountbatten succeeded in leaving with Pakistan the critically vital territory of the kingdom’s northern areas which adjoined not only Afghanistan but also had a small but geopolitically important border with Central Asia.

Jammu & Kashmir Map

Mountbatten knew that Pakistan would automatically move into the western orbit for American and British aid in the economic and military spheres to keep abreast of India’s abundant natural resources and proven native genius and that was the West’s leverage to control the territory overlooking China, Afghanistan and Central Asia. And what remained with India of the Kingdom of Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh and Tibet, Mountbatten nudged Nehru to take it the United Nations.

If Imperial London removed Tilak, Savarkar and Aurobindo to make way for Gandhi, Subhash Bose, K. M. Munshi and Rajaji, who unlike Patel were outspoken critics of Gandhi’s politics, were removed by Gandhi to make way for Nehru.

Why did Gandhi leave South Africa in July 1914?

Without going into details which are not germane to the theme of this article, suffice it to say that the South African government passed the Indian Relief Act on June 26, 1914 allegedly in response to Gandhi’s last and protracted passive resistance campaign which he launched in November 1913. As I have shown in my book Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, the Indian Relief Act gave very little to Indians but just enough to project Gandhi’s passive resistance as a very successful and “spiritual” weapon of engagement with colonial governments.

Imperial London was well aware that Tilak was due to be released from Mandalay in June 1914 and there was every danger that the Indian National Congress, which was in a limbo after the British government removed Tilak and Aurobindo forcefully from the political arena in 1908-09 while simultaneously decimating the nationalist faction of the INC which split in Surat in December 1907, would once again inevitably return to Tilak’s control. If Gandhi had to supplant Aurobindo and Tilak as leader of the INC with the same matchless moral authority and real power, then his stature would have to be muscularly and even artificially elevated to match the stature of Lokmanya Tilak. In January 1915 when Gandhi landed in Mumbai his Mahatmahood rested only on the public announcement he made in March 1906 that he was giving up sexual relations with his wife, and the manipulated success of his last passive resistance campaign which was touted to have made the racist South African government responsive to a non-violent ‘coolie’. Just so would establishment historians in India’s post-independence academe entrench the falsehood that the half-dhoti clad Mahatma brought the Empire down on its knees with his toothless smile and passive resistance.

The chimera of the success of Gandhi’s passive resistance

A clinical evaluation of Gandhi’s political activism in South Africa attests to clever manipulation of Gandhi’s ideas, actions and even the direction of Gandhi’s political activism by Imperial London (Lord Ampthill, William Wedderburn, Lord Hardingeand, Lord Minto among others), sundry Christian missionaries and the INC’s Empire loyalists Gopalkrishna Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjee and Sir Mancherjee Bhownagree.

Gandhi therefore had to be nudged to return to India with a halo around his head and the South African government readily gave Gandhi a cause to launch his last “successful” passive resistance campaign.

“Gandhi organized his satyagraha jointly against three laws: to protest the March 1913 ruling by Justice Searle in the Cape Supreme Court which de-recognized Hindu and Muslim marriages; the June 1913 Immigrants Regulation Amendment Act; and the notorious Three Pound Tax which came into effect in March 1911 and made it mandatory for every Indian family who did not wish to continue their contracts as indentured labour and chose to stay on in South Africa as ‘free’ Indians, to pay a tax of three pounds per head to the South African state. In this way, an ex-indentured family paid as much as 15, 20 or even 25 pounds, depending on the size of the family. Children of ex-indentured Indians were not spared, and boys above 16 years and girls over 13 had to pay this crippling tax. Clearly the South African regime was determined to precipitate a crisis. Gandhi’s last satyagraha in South Africa thus brought to the streets indentured and ex-indentured Indians along with vast numbers of the Indian community, making this his largest campaign in South Africa, and covering a large segment of apartheid laws in force against the Indian community. The coal miners from Newcastle in northern Natal were the first to down tools and join Gandhi in the strike, followed by workers across Natal. The satyagraha coincided with a general and paralyzing railway strike, and Gandhi was in a position to push the government into a corner, demanding immediate repeal of discriminatory laws in return for ending the non-cooperation movement. As a perfect prelude to what would become a pattern in India, first in 1922, and then in 1931, even as many Indians were brutally beaten up, killed in police firing, and as more and more Indians, particularly women, joined the strike, choosing to die for Gandhi’s satyagraha, the leader himself was simply lodged in jail. As protests mounted over his ‘arrest’ and over police brutality, Gandhi called off the civil disobedience movement. In this instance, Gandhi called off the strike at a time when it had gained optimum momentum and reached its peak, because he allegedly did not want to add to the troubles of the South African government which had already been brought to its knees by the general railway strike. So as a loyal citizen of the Empire, having demonstrated his ability to inflame passions and get ordinary, gullible people killed by repressive State power, he withdrew the strike and rendered the sacrifice of ordinary Indians completely futileGandhi’s unique ability to arouse and deflate human passions somehow always benefited the colonial government and increased his own grip over the organizations he headed” (Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, Chapter 3, Gandhi’s success in South Africa).

We must revisit Gandhi in South Africa to know exactly what he fought for, what were his weapons or tools of engagement with the South African government and whether he succeeded because of his moral worth and efficacy of his tools or because the South African government gave him a little of what he wanted so that they could pin a halo around his head and push him out of South Africa and into India where Imperial London had already planned a very large role for him in the INC to neutralise Lokmanya Tilak. This questioning must needs be done because the INC became a Kaurava Court only because even tall leaders of the Congress did not dare to publicly take down “Mahatma” Gandhi for fear of weakening the INC vis-a-vis a united, well-focussed Muslim League.

In November 1913, Lord Hardinge, the Viceroy of India, in a speech in Madras expressed sympathy with the Indian Passive Resistance struggle in South Africa, boosting Gandhi’s political and moral stature in India, which had already been enhanced by Gokhale’s towering praise for him after Gokhale returned from South Africa: “Only those who have come into personal contact with Mr. Gandhi as he is now can realize the wonderful personality of the man. He is without doubt made of the stuff which heroes and martyrs are made; Nay, more. He has in him the marvellous spiritual power to turn ordinary men around him into heroes and martyrs”. Hardinge, let us recall, at exactly the same time that he was mouthing fulsome praise for Gandhji had just sentenced Savarkar to two sentences of “transportation for life”. Imperial London and Empire loyalists had already begun to prepare the ground for Gandhi’s triumphant return.

The Indian Relief Act abolished the £3 poll tax, recognized marriages contracted in terms of traditional Indian (Muslim or Hindu) rites, and facilitated the entry into the Union of the wives of Indians already domiciled locally. However, Indians remained disenfranchised and were still not allowed to own property in the two former Boer Republics (Transvaal, Orange Free State), or to live in the Orange Free State. Further, restrictions on Indian trading remained in force. In short, the South African government did only the minimum necessary to boost Gandhi’s image as the non-violent deliverer of the Indian people. As Smuts himself stated in the Senate on March 11, 1914, Gandhi was allowed to function in South Africa as he did “because he never advocated methods of violence to overthrow the government“.

This would be Gandhi’s signature tune in India when under his leadership the freedom struggle led by Tilak and Aurobindo would turn retrograde and would eventually culminate not in independence but in the vivisection of the Hindu nation. By sabotaging the Cabinet Mission, Gandhi would not only push Jinnah over the edge in 1946 forcing Jinnah to declare “Direct Action” against ordinary Hindus, but Gandhi would also feed the jihadi monster in the shape of Sheikh Abdullah and thus light the jihadi fire which continues to burn unabated till today.

While Gandhi left the shores of South Africa on 18th July 1914 on SS Kinfauns Castle, he did not sail to India; he sailed to England where he stayed for the next six months. This vital piece of information is uniformly kept out of all history-writing. What was Gandhi doing in England for six months, which government officials and ministers did he meet, and what did they talk about, before leaving finally for India and landing in Mumbai’s Apollo Bundar in January 1915? One thing we do know. On 8th August, 1914, Gandhi was given a reception at Hotel Cecil, London by English and Indian friends: Jinnah, Lala Lajpat Rai and Sarojini Naidu were among those present at the reception. Five days later, on 13th August, 1914, Gandhi signed a circular:

“We, the undersigned have, after mature deliberation, decided for the sake of the Motherland and the Empire to place our services unconditionally, during this crisis, at the disposal of the Authorities. We advisedly use the word ‘unconditionally’ as we believe that, at a moment like this, no service that can be assigned to us can be considered to be beneath our dignity or inconsistent with our self-respect”.

This secretive pledge of loyalty and unconditional support to the Empire was signed by Gandhi, Kasturba and Sarojini Naidu and fifty other Indians. But significantly, Jinnah and Lajpat Rai, to their eternal credit, did not sign the loyalty and support pledge.

Champaran, Khera and the secret back-room deal

Gandhi’s Mahatmahood in 1915 when he returned to India, as shown, rested on weak foundations. Gandhi’s pledge of loyalty and support to the Empire must be understood in the light of the truth of Gandhi’s first major passive resistance movement in India after his return—in Champaran and Khera. To drive home the point to all Indians in general and to the INC in particular that passive resistance, humility and meekness alone were the only successful instruments of engagement with the colonial government, Gandhi and the British government in India struck a back-room secret deal. The deal was: the British government would make Gandhi’s passive resistance campaign for the farmers of Champaran and Khera a significant “success” and Gandhi in turn would use the success to portray the British government as benevolent and generous and use the success to recruit ordinary gullible Indians enchanted with his Mahatmahood to fight for Britain in World War I—a war that had nothing to do with India or India’s Hindus.

I hope to translate the spoken word into action (reference to the secret pledge of loyalty and support for WWI signed in London by Gandhi) as early as the Government can see its way to accept my offer, which I am submitting simultaneously herewith in a separate letter. I recognize that, in the hour of its danger, we must give, as we have decided to give—ungrudging and unequivocal support to the Empire, of which we aspire, in the near future, to be partners in the same sense as the Dominions overseas. I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment.

In Champaran, by resisting an age-long tyranny, I have shown the ultimate sovereignty of British justice. In Kaira, a population that was cursing the Government now feels that it, and not the Government, is the power when it is prepared to suffer for the truth it represents. It is, therefore, losing its bitterness and is saying to itself that the (British) Government must be a Government for the people, for it tolerates orderly and respectful disobedience where injustice is felt. Thus, Champaran and Kaira affairs are my direct, definite, and special contribution to the war.

I write this, because I love the English Nation, and I wish to evoke in every Indian the loyalty of the Englishman. I remain, Your Excellency’s faithful servant, M. K. Gandhi” (Excerpts from Letter to Viceroy, Delhi, April 29, 1918, N.A.I: Home, War (Deposit); October 1918 No. 26, CWMG, Vol. 17, pp 7-10).

“Further I desire relief regarding the Kaira trouble. Relief will entirely disengage me from that preoccupation which I may not entirely set aside. It will also enable me to fall back for war purposes upon my co-workers in Kaira and it may enable me to get recruits from the district.

I suggest that action in this matter be taken as a war measure. This will obviate the fear of the relief being regarded as a precedent. Pray understand that my offer is not conditional upon relief in either case. I merely ask for relief in the two cases in furtherance of the common object” (Excerpts from Letter to J. L. Maffey (Secretary to the Viceroy), Nadiad, April 30, 1918, CWMG, Vol. 17, pp 10-12).

The “common object” was to get Indians to fight and die for Britain in WWI.

The other enclosure contains my offer. You will do with it what you like. I would like to do something which Lord Chelmsford would consider to be real war work. I have an idea that, if I became your recruiting agent-in-chief, I might rain men on you. Pardon me for the impertinence. The Viceroy looked pale yesterday. My whole heart went out to him as I watched him listening to the speeches. May God watch over and protect him and you, his faithful and devoted Secretary. I feel you are more than a secretary to him. Yours sincerely, M. K. Gandhi. PS. The Reverend Mr. Ireland of St. Stephen’s College has kindly offered to deliver this letter into your hands. M.K.G.” (Letter to J. L. Maffey, CWMG , Vol. 17, pp 12, 13).

Gandhi’s INC was a social reform organization and explicitly anti-Hindu 

Thus the Mahatma’s halo which was newly pinned around his head in South Africa in 1914, with the manipulated success of his passive resistance campaign in Champaran and Khera by 1918, had become a permanent aura around his head. Gandhi had become invincible because the Mahatmahood bestowed upon him was a formidable shield. And it was this Mahatmahood which allowed him unchallenged and unquestioned authority to first de-Hinduise the Congress and transform it from a powerful political vehicle which the Congress had become under Tilak and Aurobindo’s leadership, to an impotent social reform organization which possessed neither the strength nor the sagacity to stop the Muslim League’s march towards creation of Pakistan. It was but a small step from de-hinduised Congress to anti-Hindu Congress.

It was also this Mahatmahood which enabled Gandhi to brew mischief, unrest and instability in several Hindu kingdoms in the name of civil liberties and temple entry at a time when he should have united all sections of Hindus to resist the Muslim League. Till the very end, it was Gandhi and Gandhi alone who drafted all resolutions of the CWC—the highest decision and policy-making body of the INC. It was Gandhi and Gandhi alone who made and executed all political decisions of the INC while the CWC was a mere puppet in the Mahatma’s hands.

After the arrest of the principal Congressmen in August of 1942, the unguided masses took the reins in their own hands and acted almost spontaneously. If many acts of heroism and sacrifice are to their credit, there were acts done which could not be included in non-violence. It is therefore necessary for the Working Committee to affirm, for the guidance of all concerned, that the policy of non-violence adopted in 1920 by the Congress, continues unabated and that such non-violence does not include burning of public property, cutting of telegraph wires, derailing of trains and intimidation. The Working Committee is of opinion that the policy of non-violence as detailed in the Congress resolution of 1920, since expanded and explained from time to time, and action in accordance with it, has raised India to a height never attained before. The Working Committee is further of opinion that the constructive activities of the Congress, beginning with the spinning-wheel and khadi as the centre, are emblematic of the policy of non-violence and every other Congress activity including what is known as the parliamentary programme, is subservient to and designed to promote the constructive activities as explained by Mahatma Gandhi.” (Congress Working Committee resolution on or before December 11, 1945, The Hindu 12-12-1945. The resolution drafted by Gandhiji was passed by the Congress Working Committee on December 11 the concluding day of its five-day session in Calcutta. CWMG, Vol. 89, page 25)

Not political freedom, not resisting impending vivisection, not cow slaughter but spinning wheel, khadi, cleaning latrines and temple entry was the Congress Creed. In the Congress Creed scheme of things, only Gandhi had the right to do politics; the tall leaders in the CWC played Bhishma, Drona and Kripacharya.

What we had to do was to prevent the Congress from turning into a Hindu communal organization. Anyone who had made India his home should be protected by the Congress. Hindus should never think that Hindustan belonged exclusively to them. The Parsis had come centuries ago, and the Syrian Christians were Christians ever since the time of St. Thomas. Every one of them had to be treated as an Indian enjoying the same rights as any other Indian” (Interview to Deobhankar, My Days with Gandhi, pp. 102-4, CWMG, Vol. 93, page 124).

But for me as a believer in non-violence out-and-out they (Sikh Gurus) cannot be my guides in life in so far as their faith in war is concerned.” (Guru Govind Singh, Sevagram, July 4, 1942, Harijan, 12-7-1942, Vol. 93, pp 72- 75).

When I was in detention in the Aga Khan Palace, I once sat down to write a thesis on India as a protagonist of non-violence. But as I proceeded with my writing, I could not go on. I had to stop. There are two aspects of Hinduism. There is, on the one hand, the historical Hinduism with its untouchability, superstitious worship of sticks and stones, animal sacrifice and so on. On the other, we have the Hinduism of the Gita, the Upanishads and Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra which is the acme of ahimsa and oneness of all creation, pure worship of one immanent, formless imperishable God” (A Talk, Harijan, 8-12-1946, CWMG, Vol. 93, page 43).

There were some who described the Congress as a Hindu organization. They only betrayed their ignorance of the political history of India. At one time the Hindu Mahasabha was in the hands of the Congress and so was the Muslim League and others. Congress was not a Hindu organization. It did not serve Hindu interests to the exclusion of the other communities. It was hinted that the Congress leaders had come to consult him with regard to the interests of the Hindus. Had they done so they would have lowered the stature of the Indian National Congress in the eyes of the world. They had come to consult him, as an expert on the Hindu-Muslim question, as to how best to serve the national cause in the present crisis” (Speech at a prayer meeting, Srirampur, December 28, 1946, The Hindu, 2-1-1947; and Harijan, 26-1-1947, CWMG Vol 93, page 207).

In his Outside the Archives (pages 209-210, Sangam Books, 1984), Y. D. Gundevia, Prime Minister Nehru’s last foreign secretary, recalls a Friday morning in December 1963, when Nehru held his customary free-for-all meeting with secretaries, joint secretaries, all deputy secretaries and some under secretaries. There being no specific agenda that particular day, Gundevia asked Nehru what would happen to the civil servant if, after being attuned only to Congress policies so long, the Communists were, tomorrow, elected to power in New Delhi. Nehru pondered long over the question and then said, Why do you ever imagine the Communists will ever be voted into power at the Centre?” After a long pause, he said, spelling it out slowly and very deliberately, “The danger to India, mark you, is not Communism. It is Hindu right-wing communalism.” Towards the end of the meeting he repeated his thesis.

Rahul GandhiFrom Gandhi to Nehru to Rahul Gandhi, the Congress has remained anti-Hindu

The cable that has thrust Mr. Gandhi into a political storm refers to a conversation he had with U.S. Ambassador Timothy Roemer on July 20, 2009, at a luncheon party hosted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The passage in question says that while responding to the Ambassador’s query about Lashkar-e-Taiba’s activities in India, Mr. Gandhi said there was “evidence of some support for the group among certain elements in India’s indigenous Muslim community.” The cable then went on to say, “However, (Rahul) Gandhi warned the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community. The risk of a “home-grown” extremist front, reacting to terror attacks coming from Pakistan or from Islamist groups in India, was a growing concern, and one that demanded constant attention” (The Hindu, 22-12-2010). 

The cable also attributes (M. K.) Narayanan as saying India is also seeing the beginnings of Hindu extremist groups that use violence,” agreeing, the cable says, with the Director Mueller’s point that terrorists come from more than just Muslim backgrounds (The Times of India, 17-12-2010Why M. K. Narayanan and P. Chidambaram must be tried for treason).

The Muslims had Jinnah and the Muslim League; the Hindus had no one. First Gandhi, then Nehru and then Rahul Gandhi have spoken about Hindu political empowerment which they labelled “Hindu communalism” as being worse than jihad. Modi and Amit Shah must know there can be no Congress-mukt Bharat without Gandhi-mukt Bharat.

Gandhi sets Kashmir on fire

The kingdom of Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh and Tibet was not a Muslim kingdom. The territories of the Hindus and the Buddhists in this kingdom dwarfed the Muslim population in the Kashmir valley. And yet, Gandhi and Nehru together encouraged the rise of Sheikh Abdullah in the Hindu kingdom. While the Muslim League towards the end of the 1930s decade had made it amply clear that their goal was Pakistan, Gandhi’s INC had lost sight of the political objective—political freedom from colonial rule and resisting the threatened vivisection of the nation. Gandhi had not only de-hinduised the INC, he was explicitly anti-Hindu. Gandhi’s anti-Hindu prejudices extended to Hindu maharajas and kings and to Hindu scholars and sanyasis. Briefly, while the Muslim League absorbed into itself all Muslim formations and organizations and faithfully represented Muslim religious and political interests and objectives, while the Nizams and Nawabs with the Muslim League stood united in their common desire to return Muslim rule over India after the British withdrew or at the very minimum create the Islamic State of Pakistan, Gandhi not only refused to address the genuine concerns of the Hindu princely states but went so far as to appoint Jawaharlal Nehru and the Nawab of Bhopal to oversee their affairs in the troubled times when the country was sitting on the tinderbox of imminent Muslim League violence.

Gandhi’s intense but barely cloaked animosity for nationalists like K. M. Munshi and N. B. Khare and for Hindu maharajas was his subjective preference and yet he imposed his personal opinions which were in some part unjustified and which for the greater part bordered on the fetish on the CWC and on the INC. This anti-monarchy fetish was certainly the product of Gandhi’s English “liberal” education in London and the pervasive presence of foreigners in his life which influenced his attitude towards Hindu kings and rulers. Western liberal education of the nineteenth and twentieth century was greatly influenced by the political trends in republicanism, charter of rights and democracy and the concurrent waning power of European monarchies and the power of the Church. It was fashionable in those times in Europe to be anti-monarchy and anti-orthodoxy and Gandhi subscribed to the fashion. The INC, instigated by Gandhi triggered unrest in 1938 in Mysore, Rajkot, Jaipur, Cochin and Travancore; there was unrest in Talcher and Dhenkanal too. In all these small kingdoms Gandhi precipitated a crisis either in the name of civil liberties or temple entry for harijans. Needless to say the Congress meddled only in those states ruled by Hindu princes and kings; they did not dare to take similar liberties with nawabs and nizams. The Congress passed the Haripura resolution in 1938 with the clause of self-imposed restriction on direct interference in the Indian States; much like Pakistan’s “moral support” for jihadis in Jammu and Kashmir, the Congress limited itself to moral support for the people in Indian States aspiring for civil liberties.

Just how accurate is the description of the CWC as resembling the Kaurava Court can be gauged from the by now familiar silence of Patel, Rajaji and Rajendra Prasad when Gandhi offered to hand over Hindu kingdoms to the Muslim League. Verily, the territory of the Hindu nation was Gandhi’s patrimony which is polite English for baap-ka-maal.

With reference to your letter giving me the purport of your conversation today with the Quaid-e-Azam, I wish to say in as clear language as possible that when in a Harijan article I reproduced Maulana Azad’s published offer to the Muslim League I meant it to be a serious offer in every sense of the term. Let me explain it again for your edification. Provided the Muslim League co-operated fully with the Congress demand for immediate independence without the slightest reservation, subject, of course, to the proviso that independent India will permit the operations of the Allied armies in order to check Axis aggression and thus to help both China and Russia, the Congress will have no objection to the British Government transferring all the powers it today exercises to the Muslim League on behalf of the whole of India, including the so-called Indian India.” And the Congress will not only not obstruct any Government that the Muslim League may form on behalf of the people, but will even join the Government in running the machinery of the free State. This is meant in all seriousness and sincerity. (Letter to a Muslim, August 8, 1942, CWMG, Vol. 83, pp 186-87)

Indian India was the Hindu princely states and so outraged was Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Aiyar, the Dewan of Travancore who called Gandhi’s preposterous offer a “very astute and menacing move”. Aiyar resigned from the Viceroy’s Executive Council and declared his intention to take “his gloves off and definitely and publicly to arouse the States to a sense of impending danger”.

During the extremely turbulent years of 1946-47 when everything was in a state of flux and no one could predict accurately how and when transfer of power would happen if indeed it would happen at all, several Hindu rulers and maharajas met Gandhi to probe his mind about what would be the fate of their kingdoms and provinces in the new dispensation. Among those who met Gandhi were the Deccan Princes and the Maharaja of Kapurthala. To them, like to all other princes and kings who met him, Gandhi had only one thing to say—become servants of your people. Etymologically the word may derive from ‘serve’ but the noun had acquired pejorative connotations and Gandhi, just as he had advised Morarji Desai to use the military to do only sanitation work, was now exhorting kings to become servants. This was the same Gandhi who took great exception to white people in South Africa referring to all Indians as “coolies”. Even in South Africa, Gandhi who was infuriated at being called “coolie” however referred to native Africans derogatorily as “kaffirs”. Because Gandhi was not born white and because he took great pride in being the son of the Dewan of Porbundar who also had a privileged English education in London, Gandhi aspired to be dark white in social esteem and political status within the British Empire. Readers are invited to pay attention to Gandhi’s insulting views on Indian “aborigines”, the Santhals.

Every Indian, without exception, is a coolie in the estimation of the general body of the Europeans. Storekeepers are ‘coolie storekeepers’. Indian clerks and schoolmasters are ‘coolie clerks’ and ‘coolie schoolmasters’. Naturally, neither the traders nor the English-educated Indians are treated with any degree of respect. Wealth and abilities in an Indian count for naught in that country except to serve the interests of the European Colonists. We are the ‘Asian dirt to be heartily cursed’. We are ‘squalid coolies with truth-less tongues’. We are ‘the real canker that is eating into the very vitals of the community’. We are ‘parasites, semi-barbarous Asiatics’. We ‘live upon rice and we are chock-full of vice’. Statute-books describe the Indians as belonging to the ‘aboriginal or semi-barbarous races of Asia’, while, as a matter of fact, there is hardly one Indian in South Africa belonging to the aboriginal stock. The Santhals of Assam will be as useless in South Africa as the natives of that country. You can easily imagine how difficult it must be for a respectable Indian to exist in such a country. I am sure, gentlemen, that if our President went to South Africa, he would find it, to use a colloquial phrase, ‘mighty hard’ to secure accommodation in a hotel, and he would not feel very comfortable in a first-class railway carriage in Natal, and, after reaching Volksrust, he would be put out unceremoniously from his first-class compartment and accommodated in a tin compartment where Kaffirs are packed like sheep. Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness. The aim of the Christian Governments, so we read, is to raise people whom they come in contact with or whom they control. It is otherwise in South Africa. There, the deliberately expressed object is not to allow the Indian to rise higher in the scale of civilization but to lower him to the position of the Kaffir.” (Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, Gandhi’s “Success” in South AfricaSpeech at a public meeting, Bombay, 27-9-1896, CWMG, Vol. 1, pp 407-17)

If Gandhi’s towering arrogance looked at native Africans with contempt in 1896, the same towering arrogance diminished the status of Hindu kings whom he advised to become servants of their people. There is a vast difference between Gandhi posturing to the world and choosing to call himself a “bhangi” and Gandhi condescendingly imposing the name “harijan” on people belonging to the scheduled castes, asking the Indian army to do sanitation work, advising soldiers of the INA who returned to India after the death of Subhash Bose to do farming and exhorting kings to become servants. Gandhi had no qualms about handing over Hindu kingdoms to the Muslim League and he had no qualms promoting Sheikh Abdullah against Maharaja Hari Singh.

Only a few years ago the Princes felt that they could not be safe except under the Paramountcy of the British Crown. It seemed to have dawned on most of them that that was not the correct attitude. This was but natural, for they were after all sons of the soil. He had said openly on another occasion that the people of the States were slaves of slaves which the Princes were.

If they became servants of their own people, if they took that attitude, they needed no terms with the Congress or with any other organization. The immediate need was an understanding with their own people. He made bold to take up that attitude, though his might be a lonely voice. In his opinion, the Princes, as servants and trustees of their people, were worthy of their hire” (Speech at Meeting of Deccan Princes, Poona, July 28, 1946, Harijan, 4-8-1946, and The Hindu, 1-8-1946, CWMG, Vol. 91, pp 369-70; Extracted from Pyarelal’s Deccan Chiefs in Conference).

The meeting was held in the Servants of India Society’s Library Hall. Among those present were the Rajas of Aundh, Phaltan, Bhor, Miraj (Senior), Jamkhandi and Kurundwad (Senior), Appasaheb Pant and Satawalekar from Aundh, Kore, Sathe and Thomre from Sangli, the Dewan of Bhor and representatives from Budhgaon and Ramdrug. N. C. Kelkar and Shankerrao Deo were also present on the occasion by special invitation.

Gandhi insulted the leaders of the Hindu princely states and sent them away dejected and uncertain about their fate. To add more insult to their already injured self-esteem and high status, Gandhi told them that unless they heeded Gandhi’s advice, their fate may well become worse in Nehru’s India.

I have eaten the Princes’ salt and I would not be false to it. As a faithful servant, it is my duty to warn the Princes that if they will act while I am still alive, the Princes may come to occupy an honourable place in free India. In Jawaharlal’s scheme of free India, no privileges or the privileged classes have a place. Jawaharlal considers all property to be State-owned. He wants planned economy. He wants to reconstruct India according to plan. He likes to fly; I do not. I have kept a place for the Princes and the zamindars in India that I envisage.”

There was no longer even a polite pretence that the Congress was a democratic organization. It was either Gandhi or Nehru who unilaterally decided all policies. Gandhi may have used the phrases “While I am still alive”, “In Jawaharlal’s scheme of free India”, “Jawaharlal considers” very naturally but it was an ominous portent of more dangerous things to come. During his negotiations with the Cabinet Mission, Gandhi stipulated that election of the 93 delegates from among Indian rulers of the princely states to the Constituent Assembly will be determined by the Nawab of Bhopal and Nehru. If the princely states, a majority of whom were Hindus, failed to come to an agreeable solution there will be no delegates to represent them and their issue must be transferred to the Advisory Committee referred to in Clause 20 of the State Paper. Gandhi usurped to himself the right to decide not only who would be the delegates to the Constituent Assembly on behalf of the princely states but also arrogated to himself the right to deny them agency to decide their future.

Even in that moment of acute anxiety for Hindu princely states, Gandhi did not have the vision to see an opportunity to reach out to them in solidarity and support; he saw in the meeting only a great opportunity to deliver what he considered was a well-deserved homily. It is striking that while he referred them to Nehru, he did not think he had to consult Rajaji or Patel who were more qualified intellectually to deal with this extremely complex and sensitive issue or that instead of the Muslim Nawab of Bhopal he could have requested a Hindu ruler to undertake the task. It must mean something that Gandhi had to be assassinated to give Patel the freedom and the space to integrate all princely states into the Indian Union; with the exception of Jammu and Kashmir which Gandhi handed over to Nehru as reward for filial obedience.

Sheikh Mohammed AbdullahGandhi and Nehru sow the seeds of separatism in Kashmir

Gandhi’s penchant for entrusting Nehru with all major political responsibilities had less to do with Nehru’s political ability and more to do with Nehru’s sagacity in staying on the right side of Gandhi. It was Gandhi’s “moha” for Nehru which drove a stake into the heart of the Hindu nation in 1946, when Gandhi subordinated the nation’s interest to Nehru’s personal whim in Jammu and Kashmir. Even as the INC was in the midst of the make or break negotiations with the Cabinet Delegation, trouble erupted in Jammu and Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah, a commoner from the Valley saw a great opportunity in the generally troubled times, to realize his own towering Muslim ambitions in the turbulent years preceding 1947. Playing out the drama for civil liberties and ‘freedom’ that the INC had staged in Rajkot, Jaipur and other Hindu kingdoms, Sheikh Abdullah launched in May 1946, the ‘Quit Kashmir’ campaign. Abdullah was promptly arrested and incarcerated.

Nehru, in a significant political statement that Jammu and Kashmir was his fiefdom, attempted to enter Kashmir and was speedily detained by Ram Chandra Kak, the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. Gandhi jumped into the fray and in a passionate letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, pleaded with Nehru to return to Delhi with the promise that the Congress would make Nehru’s cause in Kashmir, its own cause and Nehru’s honour, its honour. The CWC draft resolution, as usual authored by Gandhi contained the ill-concealed threat to the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir that Nehru would return to “retrieve his honour”, a threat which does not find mention in the official Congress Resolution. True to his promise to Nehru, Gandhi drafted the Congress resolution on Kashmir in the name of Maulana Azad, the President of the INC. Readers must read the resolution attentively to understand why Narendra Modi, Rajnath Singh, Manohar Parikkar and Amit Shah can do nothing different in Jammu and Kashmir and why they can do nothing to Pakistan.

Recent events in Kashmir have been repeatedly considered by the Working Committee and the Committee have been greatly affected by them. They refrained, however, from expressing any opinion as they hoped that the situation could be handled satisfactorily by friendly mediation. Their approaches, however, to the State authorities had an unfriendly response, and the situation has progressively deteriorated, involving repression of, and suffering for, the people. Recently, the popular leader of the people and the President of the Kashmir National Conference, Sheikh Abdullah was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. This has added to the gravity of the situation and distressed and angered large numbers of people within and outside the State. When Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru went to Kashmir and was arrested there, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the then President of the Congress, asked him to come back in order to continue the valuable work he was doing for the Congress in connection with the negotiations with the Cabinet Mission. Maulana Azad had assured him then, with the consent of the Working Committee, that the Congress would make his cause in Kashmir their own. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru willingly returned, though not without misgivings. The Working Committee regret to find that his misgivings were justified. From all accounts received by the Committee, repression of an open as well as a subtle type is continuing, and the people connected with the Kashmir [National] Conference are being harassed in many ways. It is reported that while elections have been announced for the State Assembly, large numbers of names are being struck off the electoral rolls, and many prospective candidates for the election have been disqualified. No attempt is being made to liberalize the Constitution and to make it more democratic and responsible. In view of these reports, the Working Committee feel it necessary to send a deputation, consisting of persons of unquestioned ability and impartiality, to inquire into the reports of repression and suppression of civil libertiesThe Committee, therefore, earnestly recommend to Kashmir State that they should invite such a deputation. Recent events in Kashmir have a large significance affecting the rulers and peoples of all the States in India and Committee trust that the States will welcome the step that they are taking in regard to Kashmir. While noting with deep regret the sentence passed on Sheikh Abdullah, the Committee would consider his incarceration as a worthy sacrifice if it results in the achievement of the freedom for which he was labouring. The Committee express their sympathy for all those who have suffered or are suffering for the cause of freedom in Kashmir.”

Gandhi’s insistence that the territory of this bhumi belonged in equal measure (in diminishing order of equality) to Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Jews and Hindus, in that order, was taken seriously by post-independence Nehruvian secular India. Secular India stood by and watched Sheikh Abdullah’s son Farooq Abdullah implement his father’s Quit Kashmir slogan faithfully in letter and spirit from 1989 onwards. His son Omar Abdullah by declaring that he will not allow Kashmiri Pandits to be re-settled in a well-protected Pandit region of the Kashmir Valley and nor will he allow Sainik colonies to be set up in Srinagar has only stated his intention to keep it that way.

Amit Shah and Narendra Modi must put some steel in the spine of the government and work towards altering the arithmetic of religious demography which is influencing electoral politics in the jihadi state. The Kashmir Valley’s quota in Lok Sabha constituencies and state assembly constituencies is unnaturally weighted in favour of Kashmiri jihadis.

The J&K state has six Lok Sabha seats—three from Kashmir valley, two from Jammu and one from Ladakh.

The Legislative Assembly was initially composed of 100 members, later increased to 111 by the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (Twentieth Amendment) Act of 1988. Of these, 24 seats are designated for the territorial constituencies of the state that were occupied by Pakistan in 1947. These seats remain officially vacant as per section 48 of the state constitution. These seats are not taken into account for reckoning the total membership of the Assembly, especially for deciding quorum and voting majorities for legislation and government formation. Hence the total contestable and filled seats of the assembly are presently 87.

The Kashmir Valley has 46 seats, the Jammu region has 37 seats and Ladakh has 4 seats.

Two women may be nominated as members by the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir if he is of the opinion that women are not adequately represented.

Prime Minister Modi and Amit Shah must do the following:

  1. Alter the religious demography of the state in a manner which will loosen the Muslim stranglehold on the polity.
  2. Set up Sainik colonies in the valley with determination and resolve.
  3. Carve out a portion of the valley for Kashmiri Pandits and set up the Sainik colonies along the borders of Pandit habitations.
  4. Bring the tenure of the J&K state assembly in line with the rest of India; reduce the tenure from the current six years to five years as it prevails in other states of the country.

And as this government moves in this direction, Hindus must know and pass the word around that it was Gandhi and not Nehru who lit the jihadi fire in the Hindu kingdom of Jammu, Kashmir, Laddakh and the Tibets. – Vigil-Online, July, 2016.

Narendra Modi in South Africa

“Modi and Amit Shah must know there can be no Congress-mukt Bharat without Gandhi-mukt Bharat.”

See also

PMO Classified File: Bose was alive in 1968 – Prithvijit Mitra

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose

Prithvijit MitraFiled before the Mukherjee Commission in 2000, Sindkar’s affidavit quotes Chattopadhyay as saying that Bose was in hiding in Russia for he feared being prosecuted as a war criminal in India. – Prithvijit Mitra

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was in Russia till at least 1968 when he had met Nikhil Chattopadhyay—son of revolutionary Virendranath Chattopadhyay—at Omsk, according to a classified PMO file released in Delhi on Thursday, [6 July 2016] .

It contains an affidavit filed by Narendranath Sindkdar, a writer and journalist who was based in Moscow between 1966 and 1991, that claims Chattopadhyay and his wife had met Bose in the Siberian town 23 years after he was apparently killed in a plane crash.

Filed before the Mukherjee Commission in 2000, Sindkar’s affidavit quotes Chattopadhyay as saying that Bose was in hiding in Russia for he feared being prosecuted as a war criminal in India.

The affidavit mentions that Sindkar had met Chattopdhyay in Moscow soon after the death of Vir Savarkar in 1966. Chattopadhyay was born in Russia, where his father was executed by the Stalin government in 1937. “During the course of our conversation he accused Nehru of forcing Netaji Subhas Chandra to exile in the Soviet Russia. It was an exile because Netaji feared that he would be declared a war criminal with the connivance of Nehru. On his arrival in the then USSR via Manchuria, Stalin, Molotov Beria and Voroshilov consulted with the Indologists who advised Stalin to consult Krishna Menon in London through the Soviet embassy. Krishna Menon categorically asserted in favour of Nehru and urged Stalin not to divulge the information,” … Sindkar’s affidavit, enclosed in file number WI/411/1/2000 – EE, claimed.

He went on to mention that he was left shocked by Chattopadhyay’s disclosure. Calling himself an ardent admirer of Netaji, Sindkar said Chattopadhyay had promised to reveal more about Netaji through one comrade Chandran. The affidavit, however, does not talk about further interactions on the revolutionary. – The Times of India, 7 July 2016

» » Prithvijit Mitra is a Times of India reporter in Kolkata. Tweet him @toi_PrithvijitM

Nehru & Menon

Beef Provocation and the ‘Intolerance’ Debate: The making of soulless Idea of India – Radha Rajan

Nehru & Gandhi (1942)

Radha Rajan is the editor of Vigil Online“The history of how Idea of India became the world’s largest exporter of beef, how Nehruvian secularist discourse is falsely projecting the meat and leather industry as one of the fundamentals of our now growing economy and how ‘I am a beef-eating Indian’ is the new secular shibboleth is embedded in the story of how both Gandhi and Nehru de-Hinduised the political and cultural public space of the country.”- Radha Rajan

Caveat: As Solzhenitsyn observed, there is no Stalinism without Leninism; because Gandhi for reasons which we now deduce, foisted Nehru on this country as the first Prime Minister, it would be just as right to say there is no Nehru without Gandhi; literally, ideationally and ideologically Nehru was Gandhi’s political heir, hand-picked by Gandhi.

Historical background to Idea of India

It was

  • because Gandhi saw Nehru’s political ideas to be closer to his own Idea of Congress (which was radically different from Tilak and Aurobindo’s Congress) and Idea of India,[1]
  • because Gandhi knew Nehru was possessed of similar ruthlessness to bend people and party to his will, and
  • because Nehru unlike Patel never expressed even minimal note of dissent against Gandhi’s politics or abuse of women for experiments allegedly to test his brahmacharya, and tactically kept himself always on the right side of Gandhi, that Gandhi overrode the wishes of every provincial Congress and every Congress member who wanted Patel as Prime Minister, and tied the Nehru-millstone around the neck of this hapless country.

Verily, Nehru’s intolerant secularism derived from Gandhi’s intolerant pre-independence anti-Hindu politics and Gandhi’s Idea of Congress was the mother of Gandhi’s Idea of India.

Nehruvian secularist political public discourse has reduced this timeless, living Hindu civilization to “Idea of India” where

  • Gandhi described Maulana Hasrat Mohini thus: “In spite of his amazingly crude views about religion there is no greater nationalist (because in Gandhi’s words the Maulana had ‘insensate hatred of the English government and for Gandhi that was nationalism’) and no greater lover of Hindu-Muslim unity than the Maulana”. Maulana Hasrat Mohini celebrated the Moplah Jihad against Hindus.

  • Jayalalithaa describes Jihadi Tipu Sultan as freedom fighter for the only reason that Tipu fought the British, and passed a resolution in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly to build a memorial for Tipu in Dindugal district; Dindugal has a very large and politically influential Christian and Muslim population in Idea of Tamil Nadu

  • Prof. Nayanjot Lahiri, eulogising Emperor Ashoka’s seventh rock edict for its “liberal” views on religion confers upon him the high title “proto secularist”; and

  • Hindus wear the tolerant-Hindu dunce-cap and will not react to history becoming wild fiction

As Hindus begin removing the tolerant-Hindu dunce-cap from their heads, this carefully crafted Gandhi-Nehru Idea of India is unravelling rapidly and just how terrified Nehruvian secularists are with the process is best judged by the mass breast-beating of Congress ‘sarkari’ scientists, writers, historians and film artists including Shahrukh Khan Anupam Kher & Shah Rukh Khan(notwithstanding Anupam Kher’s untenable defence of this obnoxious ‘wannabe Amitabh’ Khan) against what their collective hysteria is calling “growing intolerance in the country”; even they do not dare to call it growing intolerance of Hindu society. In their mortal fear of Hindu assertion Congressi eminences pretend that Hindu assertion or Hindu backlash is only intolerance of “fringe elements/outfits”. The same self-delusion blamed the “fringe” for Gandhi’s assassination because the truth is frightening—that it was Hindu backlash then and it is Hindu backlash now. It was Hindu backlash which killed Gandhi then and Hindu backlash which killed Pansare, Dhabolkar and Kalburgi now.

Removing the tolerant Hindu dunce-cap comes with the attendant responsibility to speak the truth as Hindus know it

Caveat: The idea behind labelling Hindu backlash as “intolerance of fringe outfits” is not simply to separate the doers from the rest of Hindu society but to pin the dunce-cap called “tolerant Hindu” on the vast majority of Hindus and sit them in the corner of the nation’s public discourse space. The tolerant Hindu dunce-cap, far from being a compliment was a crafty tool to discourage Hindus from protesting or reacting to ceaseless challenges to their way of life and insults to their religious identity. The dunce-cap was also presented to Hindus as crown for their steadfast refusal to resist and wreak vengeance. The only concession that Idea of India was willing to make to Hindus as consolation prize for de-legitimising their religious identity was to grant them the right to cultural identity with the Machiavellian intent to secularise Hindu religious practices and customs. “Cultural nationalism” is consolation prize for Gandhi and Nehru’s destruction of Hindu nationalism. Cultural nationalism is like the Native American reservations which European White Christian predators granted to Native Americans after invading, occupying, pillaging and taking over their nation.

Whatever claims these award-returning doomsday soothsayers have to eminence or pre-eminence was acquired through Mephistophelean deals which they struck for over six decades with one Congress ruling family beginning with Nehru. Briefly, every one of these writers, scientists, artists and historians, whose bottoms until recently were glued in perpetuity to influential chairs, were given the glue as reward-award for being committed Nehru-family loyalists ready and willing to implement Nehruvian Idea of India through the institutions which were given to them as personal fiefdoms.

The history of how Idea of India became the world’s largest exporter of beef, how Nehruvian secularist discourse is falsely projecting the meat and leather industry as one of the fundamentals of our now growing economy and how “I am a beef-eating Indian” is the new secular shibboleth is embedded in the story of how both Gandhi and Nehru de-Hinduised the political and cultural public space of the country. The de-Hinduising process began with how Gandhi allowed only a certain kind of men and women the high privilege of being physically and mentally close to him in his ashrams, allowed only a certain species of men and women to rise within the ranks of pre-independence Indian National Congress, how a certain kind of Congress member from the Provinces was handpicked by Gandhi and Nehru to go to the Constituent Assembly, how a certain breed of intellectuals was planted by Nehru in all important academic, cultural, educational and research institutions including the Planning Commission and Indian Council of Historical Reasearch and how this species, this breed kept multiplying itself by keeping pace with Nehru’s family as the family perpetuated itself in the country’s polity, and how together they made this soulless, non-Hindu, anti-Hindu Idea of India.

In Idea of India, even in Modi’s times political correctness means Hindus must wear the tolerant Hindu dunce-cap as trade-off for “development”.

This process is eerily similar to how and why the Generic Church permits a certain kind of African, Asian and inside America, a certain kind of Indian to rise to positions of eminence and in recent times to even knock against the glass ceiling; the rise of persons like Kofi Annan, Karol Wojtyla, Mohamed ElBaradei and Ban Ki-moon in the world of international politics and Hillary Clinton, Preet Bharar, Bobby Jindal and Tulsi Gabbard in American politics and establishment are cases in point.

What these deluded hopefuls either do not know or will not acknowledge is that the Generic Church’s glass ceiling is reinforced with iron to withstand race, religion and gender ‘otherness’. Native Americans, Hillary Clinton, American Jews and Hindus, full black African-Americans (with no white blood and not married to a white) may rise high enough to knock on the glass ceiling, but they may not break it.

Intolerance began with Gandhi

The converse—how Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Gandhi stood by when Imperial London forcibly removed Tilak, Savarkar and Aurobindo from the political arena and did nothing, including not defending them in court, in their speeches or writings or raise their voices in protest, how Gandhi dealt with Subhash Bose, K.M. Munshi, Rajaji and N.B. Khare,[2] all of whom were evicted brutally or with velvet gloves but evicted nevertheless from the INC because Gandhi was intolerant of dissent, how after 1947 Nehru dealt with Savarkar and N.B. Khare (one, the founder and the second, a stalwart of the Hindu Mahasabha) and how the US dealt with Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Ward Churchill, reinforces the proposition that only a certain kind of individuals are allowed to rise to high positions and vested with illusory power. In India, Gandhi and Nehru dealt muscularly and even mercilessly with Savarkar and N.B. Khare because of their steadfast Hindu nationalism.

Real intolerance which began with Gandhi is anti-Hindu

Absolute power which allows men (and women as afterthought) to rise, or the power to dislodge them or evict them from their positions rested historically with London, with Gandhi, with Nehru and his family, and rests now with America and the white Christian bloc which I call Generic Church. Nehru’s historians, Bipan Chandra, K.M. Panikkar, Romilla Thapar, Irfan Habib and their breed rose to “eminence” for the kind of history of India and history of the freedom struggle they were mandated to write. The end purpose of their lifetime’s work was to write the history of the Hindu nation and Hindu people without once using the word Hindu.

They wrote about Mughals and Turks, Persians, Muslim League and Moplah massacre, they wrote about brave Rajputs and fierce Marathas, Cholas and Pandyas, about Bahamani and Vijayanagara kingdoms, about brahmins, vaishyas and shudras and untouchability but not once has their history mentioned the word “Hindu”. Kshatriyas too, except when these historians write derogatorily about “caste” they are kept out of the historical narrative. Thapar and Habib, Bipan Chandra and Panikkar did not once use the word “Hindu” to describe or define anything except in derogatory context; they kept all traces of Hindu pride out of the narration and they kept out narratives which mandated use of words like Hindu heroes, Hindu warriors, Hindu saints or Hindu victims. There were no Hindus in Irfan Habib and Romilla Thapar’s history of India. If there are no Hindus, it follows there is no Hindu nation. The history of India’s freedom struggle was made Gandhi-Nehru centric which washed away jihad, Hindu victimhood, resistance to Gandhi and vivisection of Hindu bhumi without a trace from the narrative. In Gandhi’s Idea of India, Hasrat Mohini is a nationalist and Tipu Sultan becomes freedom fighter.

Real intolerance in this country was thus anti-Hindu and began with Gandhi who was only a notional Hindu. On the very rare occasions that Gandhi invoked Hinduism, it was only in speech; there was no Hindu content in his political activism and Gandhi never used Hinduism as counter to the Muslim League. Gandhi whitewashed the Ali brothers for the Hindus in the INC and stoutly refused to allow any political discourse inside the INC which would present the Ali brothers, Moplah massacre, Khilafat Committee, Muslim League, Jinnah or Direct Action as Jihad and Jihadis arraigned against Hindus and the Hindu nation. Congress sarkari historians have propagated the fiction that vivisection (secularism prefers to use the word partition which looks and sounds bloodless) happened despite Gandhi’s best efforts to stop it. The truth is Gandhi told Jinnah that he was agreeable to partition but partition as between brothers while Jinnah insisted it was partition of two nations.

Hindus wearing the “tolerant” dunce-cap never raised questions about Gandhi’s arrogance for arrogating to himself the authority to agree to partition the territory of this timeless civilization and did Gandhi really think partition among brothers was as a rule bloodless and without rancour? Refusing to learn anything from what Aurangazeb, a devout Muslim and Islamic scholar did to his father, brothers and sons, Gandhi offered to partition the nation with Jinnah and the Muslim League.

This was Gandhi’s Idea of India where tolerant Hindus will not express dissent, question his ideas and actions or raise the banner of revolt when he singlehandedly led the so-called freedom struggle which vivisected the Hindu nation. Tolerant Hindus with dunce-caps on their heads thought Gandhi served Hindu interests because unlike Jinnah, Gandhi spoke about Rama, Ramrajya, Ramanama and Bhagvad Gita; exactly how Hindus stood by and watched temple-going Jayalalithaa destroy the Kanchi Matham. Tolerant Hindus love Jayalalithaa for the same reason they love Gandhi because after she destroyed the Kanchi Matham, she made a well-publicised gesture of donating—donating, not offering—an elephant to the Guruvayoor Temple something which Karunanidhi like Jinnah never did and will never do.

Gandhi spoke minimally about Hinduism and only to the extent needed to keep Hindus within the Congress fold. Gandhi wanted the Congress vehicle to implement his agenda for the Hindu nation, the agenda for which Imperial London made the space by removing Tilak, Savarkar and Aurobindo, the agenda which Gandhi implemented successfully by first silencing all dissent, then disarming and finally disempowering powerful Hindus within the Congress. But because there was no Congress without Hindus, Gandhi made notional and laughable references to Rama and Ramanama, Ramrajya and Bhagavad Gita. Once partition became a certainty and the INC had served its purpose, Gandhi wanted the INC to be dismantled. That was before it struck him that partition had given a fillip to Hindu nationalism again and the Idea of Congress had to be retained as instrument to check and suppress forces of Hindu nationalism after independence; after independence Nehru’s Idea of Congress would implement Gandhi’s Idea of India.

Gandhi realized that Nehru, not Patel was best suited to continue the task. Gandhi instructed Acharya Kripalani to ask Patel to withdraw his candidature and when Patel obliged unquestioningly, Gandhi anointed Nehru as Prime Minister of the Interim Government. Gandhi overrode general disquiet in the INC against Nehru, brushed aside Congress will and unilaterally and undemocratically chose Nehru as Prime Minister of the Interim Government because the Prime Minister of the Interim Government would take over as first Prime Minister of independent India.

Gandhi’s INC was like the Kaurava Court in Hastinapur. Patel was to Gandhi what Bhishma was to Dhritrashtra. If Bhishma equated Hastinapur with the throne and the throne with Dhritrashtra, Patel, in the fateful years between 1915 and 1945 equated Gandhi with Hindu interests and fallaciously juxtaposed him with Jinnah; Acharya Kriplani, Rajendra Prasad and Rajaji were Dronacharya, Kripacharya and Vidhura while Nehru was Duryodhana who would be king.

Narendra ModiAfter Gandhi, Nehru institutionalised this anti-Hindu intolerance when he packed academic, administrative, educational, cultural and research institutions with those who would serve his Idea of India. Hinduism, Hindu temples, Hindu way of life and Hindu religious and cultural sensitivities were the intended target of Gandhi’s politics and later of Nehru’s secularism which elevated scientific temper, the declared antithesis to Hindu religious practices, to exalted heights of Nehruvian secular Brahman. Scientific temper spawned Rationalism as its own intolerant philosophy and positioned itself against Hindus and Hinduism. If scientific temper de-sanctified the cow, rationalism mocked worship of the cow.

Intolerance is Abrahamic and monotheist

The method used by Gandhi and Nehru to handpick their private army which would now erase Hinduness or Hindutva from the nation’s consciousness is startlingly Abrahamic and similar to the oath of allegiance which must be taken by persons who become naturalised citizens of America and this oath is only a political manifestation of what the Church demands of new converts to Christianity.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law….” (Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America)

The oath of allegiance is the best example of Abrahamic intolerance, replicated by Gandhi and Nehru to the detriment of Hindus and Hindu nation. The oath begins not with a promise of allegiance but with the demand to renounce, abjure and reject all prior loyalties, affections, identities and relationships. Thou shalt worship no other God but ME is the cardinal tenet of Abrahamic monotheisms. As price for the privilege of keeping on the right side of Gandhi and Nehru, Hindus had to abjure, renounce and give up all public display of their Hindu identity. They may not speak or write owning up to or defend varna, jaati and kula, Hindu temples and Hindu religious sensitivities. Their new identity was Gandhi loyalist, Nehru loyalist, Congress loyalist or Secularist. In this Idea of Idea tolerance was equal to secularism which is equal to allowing Muslims and Christians to be religiously and politically Abrahamic while politically ambitious Hindus in electoral politics or government administration, in the interest of secularism and to avoid being labelled communal, were discouraged from being Hindu. To be a Hindu in politics and administration in Idea of India came with weighty disincentives.

In India, Nehruvian secularists designed the glass ceiling to separate Hindu nationalists from the tolerant Hindu and to separate parliament from government. Hindu nationalists may now rise to reach parliament and knock on the glass ceiling but they may not break it; not yet.

Beef and the intolerance debate

Notwithstanding Gandhi’s affection for the cow “because the cow is a useful animal” nether Gandhi and Nehru nor their Idea of Congress acknowledged that the cow was sacred to Hindus. Because Gandhi declared Congress was not a Hindu party and Indian raj was not Hindu raj, neither Gandhi nor Nehru and their Idea of Congress included cow protection in the Congress Creed and therefore never campaigned against cow slaughter.

The Constituent Assembly, like Gandhi’s Idea of Congress for obvious reasons resembled the royal court of the Kauravas. It could not be expected of this instrument whose content was provided by Gandhi and Nehru to make cow protection a basic feature of the Constitution. Instead totally in keeping with Gandhi’s affection for the cow which was a useful animal and in keeping with Nehru’s total indifference to both the holy cow and the useful cow, cow protection like Uniform Civil Code was moved to Directive Principles, a section which dealt with issues which may charitably be termed borderline-irrelevant to their Idea of India. Sixty-eight years after independence no parliament has committed itself to bringing in a uniform, all-India law banning cow slaughter. So successful is the pivotal role of the tolerant Hindu dunce-cap in shaping and influencing political discourse on cow and beef that no senior Hindu politician even in the BJP has thus far summoned the courage or conviction to say cow is sacred to Hindus, cow slaughter violates Hindu religious sensibilities and the BJP is committed to bringing in a law banning cow slaughter with the rider that sale and consumption of beef will be banned constitutionally. Modi has not said it and neither have Amit Shah, Arun Jaitley, Manohar Parikkar or Sushma Swaraj; and Maneka Gandhi’s head will almost certainly roll if she were to break ranks to call for banning cow slaughter.

Narendra ModiAs if to reinforce the allegation that Modi Sarkar has not moved in the direction of halting and then reversing the country’s meat production and beef export policy:

“With the new government taking charge in May last year, growth in meat exports did indeed see a dip in the April to June quarter. While exports rose 24 per cent in April 2014, shipments slowed in next two months—growth was a modest 10 per cent for the April to June period. But it has recovered since, rising 16 per cent in the first half of 2014/15 and 17 per cent in the first 10 months. Meat export is now a $5 billion industry, not only replacing basmati rice as the biggest revenue earner in India’s processed foods category, but also making India the second-biggest meat exporter. The supportive policies Modi railed against remain in place—the government still offers a grant of up to Rs.15 crore to set up new abattoirs or modernise existing ones.” (Reference)

Facts about beef

If the mandate of Nehru’s historians was to re-write the history of the Hindu nation without any mention of Hindus in the narrative, Nehru’s economists in the Planning Commission were mandated among other things to make meat and hide an integral part of economic planning and implementation. If the ideological origins of de-sanctifying the cow may be attributed to Gandhi, the origins of commodifying the cow, other animals and their meat, thereby de-legitimising and rejecting ahimsa as this nation’s defining characteristic and emerging as the world’s top exporter of beef may be found in Nehru’s economic agenda for the country and in the character of the economists in the Planning Commission. Speaking of institutionalised intolerance in Nehru’s Idea of India, renowned economist Bibek Debroy, in an interview to Times of India had this to say:

Q: “A debate has been raging on the issue of intolerance in the country. What has been your experience?”

A: “What is generally not known is that Jagdish Bhagwati was essentially made to leave Delhi School of Economics and had to go abroad because his life was made very uncomfortable. He left DSE because there is a certain prevailing climate of opinion and if you buck that, your life is made uncomfortable.”

In the course of the second five-year plan, a committee of economists was set up to examine the Second Five Year Plan. Dr B.R. Shenoy, member of the Panel of Economists constituted to analyse and apprise Nehru about the ambitious Second Five-Year Plan which made the self-destructive transition from investing in agriculture to investing in industries, was the only one to strike a dissenting note.[3] As one of the several examples that Bibek Debroy gave for Idea of India’s institutionalised intolerance, he asked “Do you find Dr Shenoy’s name mentioned in the history of union policy-making? No. He was completely ostracized. He could not get a job in India and he ended up in Ceylon.”[4]

“The second Five Year Plan centered on a shift towards developing capital goods and heavy industry for long-term economic benefit. Of the Rs 4,672 crore in public spending, there was a significant shift in allocation from agriculture to industry between the first and second Five Year Plans. During that period, agriculture spending fell from 37 percent of public spending to 20.9 percent, while industry allocation increased from 4.9 to 24.1 percent.” (Economic Milestone, Second Five Year Plan (1956))

It must mean something that while Forbes India thought the Second Five Year Plan was a milestone, B.R. Shenoy wrote a dissenting report on it; the only dissenting note as it turned out in the Kaurava Court.

Some numbers about meat production and beef export

India officially does not export cow meat. While “beef” is cow meat in Government of India trade jargon, beef is the legally accepted name for meat of all bovines. I know from personal experience that pregnant cows, milch cows, pregnant buffaloes, very young cow and buffalo calves aged between 2 and 5 years, calves less than a year old, heifers—all of them are transported to Kerala for slaughter from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, sometimes even from Maharashtra and from cattle markets in Tamil Nadu. This means all bogus pronouncements of no cow slaughter and no cow meat export, the country was slaughtering cows, even pregnant cows, pregnant buffalos (so much for worshipping mothers and motherhood) are being slaughtered either for domestic consumption or for export or both. Nehru and Nehruvian economics alone has degraded this ancient civilization to the world’s largest exporter of beef. India is also all set to become the world’s largest meat producing country in the world.

  • Meat exports from India commenced in 1969.
  • According to data released by Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) under the Ministry of Commerce, Indian buffalo meat exports touched an all time high of Rs 13,917 crore in value terms in April-October 2013, representing an increase of nearly 58% over same period last year. In terms of quantity too, there has been 23% rise in buffalo meat exports from India.
  • India has about 58 per cent of the world’s population of buffaloes. Two schemes in operation in the country, namely, Salvaging and Rearing Male Buffalo Calves (SRMBC), and the Utilization of Fallen Animals scheme (UFA) have created new incentives to slaughter previously under-utilized buffalos.
  • India has now 40 world-class export-oriented integrated meat processing plants and 35 meat processing units. A few more are in the pipeline.
  • The share of bovine meat in the total meat production in India is about 60% as against small ruminants (15%), pigs (10%) and poultry (12%). To produce the necessary quantities, the extraction rates in cattle are about 6%, buffaloes 11%, sheep 33%, goat 38% and pigs 84%.
  • Among Indian states, Uttar Pradesh (UP) has emerged as the biggest exporter of buffalo meat, followed by Punjab and Maharashtra. Besides having the country s largest buffalo population, UP has also has the highest number of abattoirs-cum-meat processing export units. The state has 317 registered slaughterhouses and, in addition, 24 export-oriented units for buffalo meat. Of total Indian carabeef exports, 67% originates from this state.
  • Hind Agro Industries, Al Noor Exports, Al Nafees Frozen Food Exports, Frigerico Conserva Allana, Rustam Foods, Rayban Foods Private are some of the major exporters from UP. “The state has 645 cattle markets, which ensure that there is a steady supply of the raw material,” said an exporter. Spurting meat exports from India reflects the importance attached to the livestock sector in the country’s agro-economy.
  • According to estimates of Central Statistical Office, the value of output from the country’s livestock sector at current prices was Rs 4,59,051 crore in 2011-12, which is about 24. 8 per cent of the total value of output from agricultural and allied sector at current price. The value of output from the meat group in 2011-12 was Rs 83.641 crore.
  • India is endowed with the largest livestock population in the world. It accounts for about 58 per cent of the world buffalo population and 14.7 per cent of the cattle population.
  • MPS meat processing systems of the Netherlands is the global market leader in the supply of advanced red meat slaughtering systems, CO2 stunners, blood collection plants, carcass splitters, food logistic systems, and industrial wastewater treatment systems. Helmus Damen, Area Sales Manager, MPS Meat Processing Systems, The Netherlands, in a brief interview with Agri Business & Food Industry, talks about his company’s India plans, why India is a big market in red meat processing markets, issues like after-sale service and pricings, food safety, among other things. Excerpts: “You must have some attractive plans and offerings for India. What are they?” “We have our MPS Lines in operation in India already for 20 + years. We have also installed several MPS buffalo and sheep lines in India where we have produced critical parts in India, by our design and specifications, as such reducing costs to acceptable levels for the India market. In addition MPS has its internal and external global training management solution where not only the technical, maintenance and operation staff is trained but also trained on the application (who, what, where, when)”.
  • India is set to become world s largest meat exporter, while in production—5.5 million tonnes valued at Rs 83,600 crore in 2011-12—it ranks eighth.
  • There is huge demand for halal meat, the market for which is growing rapidly throughout the world, specifically in the Middle East.
  • Per capita meat consumption in India is low—around 5 kg as compared to the world average of 47 kg. This shows the huge potential for expansion. The meat industry is likely to grow at a good pace, say, at a compound growth rate of 8% over the next five years. The processed meat industry is growing even much faster, at about 20%.
  • Considering the increasing demand for buffalo meat, Government of India has commissioned three modernized abattoirs in Hyderabad, Kolkata and Shimla. The Government has plans to set up 25 more new abattoirs, including modernization of existing ones, in the ongoing Twelfth Plan at a cost of Rs. 240 crore.
  • Indian meat is exported to 65 countries, the biggest markets being Vietnam (40 per cent), Malaysia (nine per cent), Thailand (seven per cent) and Saudi Arabia (six per cent).
  • A visit to the districts of Meerut, Aligarh and Muzaffarnagar in western Uttar Pradesh—the state is the country s meat hub, exporting $3 billion worth per year—shows rearing buffaloes has indeed become much more popular than keeping cows. Nor is the phenomenon confined to Uttar Pradesh. “Booming meat export has triggered large-scale farming of buffaloes in states like Maharashtra and Punjab,” says Mohammed Ather, Managing Partner of New Delhi-based meat exporters, the Azan Group.
  • Two large, new markets are likely to be added soon—Russia and China. Russia has approved buffalo meat imports from India after its Western sources dried up, following the sanctions imposed on it by West Europe and the US over the Ukraine standoff. “India can expect $500 million to $1 billion increase in buffalo meat exports once shipments to Russia picks up,” says Santosh Sarangi, Chairman, Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) a division of the Commerce Ministry, with which all abattoirs and meat processing plants have to register.
  • So too, India and China signed a memorandum of understanding in 2013 over China providing market access to Indian meat. “It is well-known that much of our meat exports to Vietnam ultimately reach China,” adds Sarangi. “Direct access to China will lead to another quantum jump in exports.”

From her answer to a question on the country’s import and export Union Minister for Commerce and Industry in the Rajya Sabha on 18th March 2015, we know:

  • From April 2013 to February 2014, the value of exports from leather and leather products was 5078.84 million USD and the value between April 2014 and February 2015 was 5661.16 million USD.

  • Value of export of Meat, Dairy and Poultry products for the same period was worth 4773.01 million USD and 4942.06 million USD respectively.

  • The value of total exports for this period was 284 billion USD and 287 billion USD

  • The percentage of the value of export of Leather and Leather products and Meat, Dairy and Poultry products is less than 2% each of the value of total exports and together less than 4% of total exports

The Indian GDP in 2015 is around 2.2 trillion USD. The country’s total exports are around 13% or less than 1/7 of the GDP and based on the figures presented by Union Minister for Commerce and Industry, the value of exports from leather, leather products, dairy and meat export is less than 4% of the value of our total exports. (Reference)  

India Carabeef Export 2015This being the case, intolerant Hindus who refuse to wear the tolerant Hindu dunce-cap and sat down in the corner of national public discourse space must ask Modi Sarkar to reconsider the nation’s meat production and beef export policy. Notwithstanding the fact that revenue from exports from the livestock sector is less than 4% of our total exports, it is still a fact that the beef industry is resource intensive. The numbers of India’s Asian Water Buffalo is decreasing alarmingly; as alarmingly as the numbers of elephants and camels. By commodifying animals and using language which takes away the sanctity of their lives in Creation, successive governments from Nehru to Modi have built and are building our economy from killing—from the flesh, blood and bones of defenceless animals which if they could would run away or protect themselves from humans and their greed.

Closing word: This timeless civilization is soulless today. There is more to life than “acche din” and development. From the table below readers can see that there was a massive leap in meat production, around a 100% leap, between years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Even states which prior to this period were not big meat producing states are now showing high numbers for meat production. Crying “intolerance” cannot brush aside the fact that Idea of India is escalating its attacks against Hindu religious sensibilities to test Modi and his government to see how they react to the provocation. So far, Modi and his government have shown great resilience to withstand the infamy being heaped upon them; but equally true is the fact that Modi and his government have also not warned these intolerant Idea of India goons that needless provocation of Hindu religious sentiments will come with a cost. If the government will not take steps to protect Hindu religion and its articles of faith, well then intolerant Hindus who have unpinned the tolerant dunce-cap from their heads will continue to do all it takes to discourage such affront. – Vigil Online, 12 November 2015

» Radha Rajan is an author, political commentator, and animal rights activist in Chennai. She edits the website Vigil Online.State-wise Estimate of Meat Production in India


[1] Gandhi’s Idea of India: “Hindusthan belongs to all those who are born and bred here and who have no other country to look to. Therefore it belongs to Parsis, Beni-Israelis, to Indian Christians, Muslims and other non-Hindus as much as to Hindus. Free India will be no Hindu-raj, it will be Indian raj based not on the majority of any religious sect or community but on the representatives of the whole people without distinction of religion. I can conceive a mixed majority putting the Hindus in a minority. Religion is a personal matter which should have no place in politics”. (Gandhi was talking to a group of correspondents during the visit of the Cabinet Mission. Refer Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and his Freedom Struggle, Radha Rajan, NAPL 2009, page 362)

[2] How Gandhi dealt with Subhash Bose, K.M. Munshi, Rajaji and N.B. Khare:

Subhash Bose: “Bose’s anger with Gandhi intensified after Gandhi failed to save Bhagat Singh from the gallows, and when Gandhi refused to make release of political detenus in Bengal a pre-condition for his talks with Irwin and when he saw that despite the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, the three rounds of the Round Table Conference did not provide any impetus towards political independence, and when he clearly perceived that Gandhi s piloting of the INC was not carrying the movement forward but that people s initiatives for freedom were being thwarted and even paralyzed by Gandhi in the name of passive resistance and  doing justice . Gandhi repeatedly violated the Mahabharata dictum of reciprocity to the detriment of Indian national interests. Once Gandhi declared Bose’s victory was his defeat, the slavish INC did not dare murmur a protest and several Working Committee members including Maulana Azad and Rajendra Prasad obediently offered to resign. Taking their cue from Gandhi’s statement to the press on Bose’s re-election (see end of chapter) the Congress Ministries too threatened to resign. Gandhi’s psychological warfare against Bose succeeded and Bose resigned as Congress President on 29th April, 1939. Not content with inciting revolt in the Congress ranks to force Bose to resign, Gandhi, who had resigned from the primary membership of the Congress and had also announced his retirement from politics, drafted the Congress Working Committee resolution of August 11, 1939 which removed Subhash Bose as President of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee on “disciplinary” grounds (read opposing the Gandhi-drafted Tripuri Resolution). Gandhi was determined to evict Bose completely out of the Congress and this he did in step after measured step; Bose was a serious impediment to Gandhi’s despotic control over the Working Committee.

“The Working Committee has come to the painful conclusion that it will fail in its duty if it condones the deliberate and flagrant breach of discipline by Subhas Babu. The Working Committee therefore resolves that for his grave act of indiscipline Shri Subhas Babu is declared disqualified as President of the Bengal Provincial Congress Committee for three years as from August 1939. The Working Committee trusts that Shri Subhas Babu will see the error of his ways and loyally submit to this disciplinary action. The Working Committee has taken note of the indiscipline of many other Congressmen including responsible officials. But it has refrained from taking any action as the members acted under the inspiration of Shri Subhas Babu.” (Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, page 285)

N.B. Khare: “Whenever Gandhi was not sure of compliance or on those occasions when he was challenged or simply overruled, Gandhi both privately and publicly degraded those who thus challenged him. In 1938, Gandhi forced the Congress Working Committee to expel N.B. Khare, the Prime Minister of the Central Provinces on the pretext that Khare had dared to deal directly with the Governor of the province without consulting the Working Committee or the Parliamentary Board; what it actually meant was that Khare did not allow Gandhi to play remote control. After his expulsion from the Congress, N.B. Khare rose to become a prominent leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, giving rise to the suspicion that Gandhi may have exerted pressure on the CWC to expel Khare possibly because of Khare’s latent Hindu nationalism.”

“Press cuttings on the ministerial crisis in C.P. make most instructive reading. That the resolution of the Working Committee condemning the action of veteran leader like Dr. Khare would come in for some severe criticism was a foregone conclusion. But I was not prepared for the ignorance betrayed by the critics on the functions of the Working Committee. Dr. Khare was not only guilty of gross indiscipline in flouting the warnings of the Parliamentary Board, but he betrayed incompetence as a leader by allowing himself to be fooled by the Governor, or not knowing that by his precipitate action he was compromising the Congress. He heightened the measure of indiscipline by refusing the advice of the Working Committee to make a frank confession of his guilt and withdraw from leadership. The Working committee would have been guilty of gross neglect of duty if it had failed to condemn Dr. Khare’s action and adjudge his incompetence. I write these lines in sorrow. It was no pleasure to me to advise the Working Committee to pass the resolution it did.” (Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, pages 464, 499)

K.M. Munshi: “K.M. Munshi expressed his disagreement with the Gandhi-Congress creed on non-violence on the grounds that while he agreed in principle on ahimsa he did not think he could practice it given the communal tensions in Bombay.

“Shri K. M. Munshi came to me as soon as it was possible after his return to Bombay. In the course of the discussion, I discovered that whilst he accepted in the abstract the principle of ahimsa with all its implications, he felt the greatest difficulty in acting upon it, the more so as with his intimate knowledge of Bombay he was sure that he could not carry the Hindus with him, much less the Muslims. He knew that the numerous Hindus who were under his influence would look to him for guidance and would seek his advice. He saw no way of convincing them that they could defend themselves through ahimsa. As a political weapon and therefore of immediate use in the midst of the riots which looked more like a miniature civil war, he could not make any effective use of ahimsa. With him the question was not one of interpretation of Congress resolutions but of being truthful to himself and to the country. In view, therefore, of the following resolution by the A.I.C.C. explaining the Wardha statement, I advised that the only dignified and brave course for him was to resign from the Congress and attain freedom of action unhampered by restrictions entailed by the Congress non-violence.” (Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, page 288)

Rajaji: “Rajaji allegedly resigned  from the INC because he advocated acceptance of Partition which he considered inevitable (rightly, it would seem in retrospect, considering Gandhi had no plan to avert Partition and did not allow the Congress to even think it should be averted by all and every means); only he proffered his own formula for Partition famously called the CR Formula. But, possibly discomfited over Bose s expulsion and with the INC s inability to stand up to Gandhi’s control over the CWC, its paralyzing weakness vis-à-vis the Muslim League and its consequent growing irrelevance, Rajaji convened a meeting of non-Congress legislators in Madras and asked the Governor to invite him to form a ministry under him as Prime Minister. The Muslim League wanted Pakistan and Rajaji who saw the growing incapacity of Gandhi-led Congress to deal with the Muslim League advocated separation but on terms different from that of the Muslim League (Rajaji favoured partition of the country which included partition of Bengal and the Punjab accompanied by total transfer of population) to enable the immediate formation of a national government. But Gandhi refused to see the writing on the wall and strangely enough Patel too and both were of the opinion that Rajaji’s public espousal of separation may precipitate the British Government to move in that direction. Neither Gandhi nor Patel saw the advantages of having Rajaji argue his case from within the Congress which would have polarized opinions more sharply and clearly; instead Gandhi asked Rajaji to resign from the Congress and campaign for his formula from outside the Congress.” (Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, page 291)

[3] B.R. Shenoy’s dissenting note may be read here (PDF). 

[4] To get a real idea of how it is only intolerance of those who are now lecturing to Modi and Hindus about tolerance which drives research, cultural and educational institutions read “Intolerance has always existed: Niti Aayog’s Bibek Debroy” 

Shatish & Atul Sabharwal-owned Al Kabeer abattoir in Rudraram village, Medak district, Andhra Pradesh.

Humpbacked Brahma cattle being bled to death—for halal beef—in the Shatish & Atul Sabharwal-owned Al Kabeer abattoir in Rudraram village, Medak district, AP.

Kapil & Promila Sibal

Senior lawyer and Congress politician Kapil Sibal and his wife Promila: Promila operates three beef processing and export companies in New Delhi called Arshiya Exports Pvt. Ltd, Hacker Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (a subsidiary of Arshiya Exports) and Arihant Farm House Pvt. Ltd. Note that the names of the companies are designed to hide from the public their very real killing business!

See also

  1. Meat Tech Asia 2016 in Bangalore
  2. India: Top buffalo meat exporter
  3. Our Indian clients are making money with chicken
  4. Indian buffalo meat has become a serious business proposition 
  5. Contrary to fears, buffalo meat exports are thriving under the Narendra Modi government

Nehru’s spymasters played a role in the Netaji cover-up – Anuj Dhar

Anuj Dhar“The bogey of India’s relations with foreign countries being spoiled is raised to prevent the Central government from taking any decision regarding the declassification [of the Netaji files]. This bluff needs to be called and the government must not allow Congress-inspired propaganda to succeed. … Government of India has robust ties with countries like Russia and UK, and there is no reason why these countries [should] not talk about the Netaji mystery. What is required is sincere effort. So far, no proper effort was made in this regard.” – Anuj Dhar

Rajnath SinghTop Indian spymasters including B.N. Mullick, Ram Nath Kao and M.L. Hooja played a major role in the cover-up of the mysterious disappearance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. The declassified files of the West Bengal government have indicated that the various intelligence agencies were snooping on members of Netaji’s family as well as his associates, primarily to ascertain whether he was in touch with them and if there were plans to reorganise the Indian National Army (INA).

The surveillance by the Intelligence Bureau and the CID of the West Bengal police was directly being monitored by the spymasters, in all probability, under instructions from the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

The declassified files have provided ample indications that Netaji was spotted in China, somewhere in the late 1940s, much after the plane crash, in which he was reported to have died. It is yet to be established whether Netaji went to China first or was captured by the Soviet forces and subsequently allowed to travel to the Communist country.

The revelations in the declassified files also pertain to the lack of effort by Indian opposition leaders in tracing one of the country’s most well-known freedom fighters. If the Congress government was guilty of suppressing the true facts about Netaji, opposition leaders too cannot be absolved for failing to corner the government about the real story.

 West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee at the release of the files on Netaji at Kolkata Police Museum on 18 September 2015The move by the West Bengal government to declassify the files is bound to put pressure on the Centre for doing the same with files related to Netaji’s disappearance, files that are with the intelligence agencies and the Prime Minister’s Office. There is strong apprehension that the PMO is not being properly informed about the issue by the bureaucrats, since the files at the Centre have been “Congress-ised” and contain a narrative which suited Congress leaders and portrayed the INA leader in poor light. Often, the bogey of India’s relations with foreign countries being spoiled is raised to prevent the Central government from taking any decision regarding the declassification. This bluff needs to be called and the government must not allow Congress-inspired propaganda to succeed.

The fresh revelation is certainly going to better our understanding about the mystery, bringing us more close to the truth. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that there was no plane crash. We are likely to meet the Prime Minister on 14 October on the issue and are expecting that the government will take the matter seriously. The PM has reportedly asked some secretaries to be present at the meeting. But I would like that intelligence people should also be there at the meeting.

Though the West Bengal files are significant, these are actually “chicken feed”. The real stuff lies in Delhi and in some foreign places like Moscow. Government of India has robust ties with countries like Russia and UK, and there is no reason why these countries do not talk about the Netaji mystery. What is required is sincere effort. So far, no proper effort was made in this regard.

Some academics are saying that Nehru was not aware of the snooping on Netaji’s kin. But I think, the Intelligence Bureau would not have the courage to do it without the knowledge of the then Prime Minister.

Narendra ModiFormer Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee took a few steps to unfold the truth. But successive Congress governments failed to do anything. I would give 0/100 to Congress, while 50/100 to the BJP as far as sincerity to crack the Netaji mystery is concerned. The BJP has nothing to lose and everything to gain by declassifying the files that are with the Centre. I would like to tell the Prime Minister that we have the best chance to crack the mystery. His party is bound by its promise of declassifying the Netaji files. – The Sunday Guardian, 19 September 2015

» Anuj Dhar, who has been trying to unravel the Netaji disappearance mystery for years, is the author of India’s Biggest Cover-up.