Why do you call Nehru, ‘Panditji’ ?

‘Why do you say ‘Panditji’ while refering to Nehru? Why the honorific ;ji’? Do you concur with his policies?’ asks a reader.

Here is why:

Jawahar Lal Nehru, a Kasmiri Pandit, came into my world as Pandit Nehru. Neyveli, a brainchild of Nehru, Kamaraj, Venkatraman and C.Subramaniam, had Panditji enshrined in every possible space. I am a product of Jawahar School, named after him.

For me, Panditji, like Gandhiji, Netaji, Rajaji and Kamaraj, is a national hero. No doubt, he made mistakes (three costly ones included). So did all others.

A leader doesn’t come to us chiseled in pristine silver, but as a Pancha-Loka – a mixture of several characteristics and attributes. Some characteristics outshine the others. That is all about it.

Gandhiji too made mistakes. But that doesn’t diminish his sacrifice or achievements. So did Netaji. He aligned with Hitler, but for a greater cause. That doesn’t make Netaji a person not worthy of respect and awe.

Rajaji, for all his intellect and impeccable integrity, aligned with the anti-national DMK. I think it was a mistake. He wanted a referendum on Kashmir and later opposed the abolition of privy purse. But his stature doesn’t tumbledown due to that. For me, Rajaji would continue to be the best pragmatist and pro-market realist that India has ever had.

Similarly, despite his blunders on China, Kashmir and the pro-left economics, Panditji would continue to be a hero, albeit a tad lesser than Rajaji or Gandhiji.

Hence, for me, Nehru is Panditji. Period.

P.S.: Don’t expect any kind treatment of Panditji in my upcoming book ‘Our struggle for Truth, Sense and Honour – a Hindutva version of Indian History’. #realnehruhistory

Soniaji, fire your speech writer please

Dear Smt.Soniaji,

I am a dark skinned Indian from the south of the Vindhyas. Oh, yes, the same Vindhya mountain ranges in Central India. And yes, world exists and people still live in the southern part of India.

Just to remind you: India is where you had come to live as a daughter-in-law.

So, why am I writing to you in English? Well, I don’t know Italian. And, Mani Sankar Iyer, your speech writer, can translate this for you to understand. I could have written in Tamil, for Mani is supposed to know Tamil as well. But with his dubious mastery of English and an equally dubious sense of history, I very much doubt Mani would understand Tamil. In any case, no one in Tamil Nadu would be reading this letter. Hence, it really doesn’t matter.

I know you are naïve and hence read Mani gives you. But when you read in Parliament, please take care. All speeches are recorded unless or otherwise expunged. That your speeches are foolish because your speech writer is foolish, is known to us. But generations later, my great-grandchildren should not think that their great-grandfather had lived in times when the leader of the opposition was a nincompoop.

Take this example. Yesterday you had said this about the constitution:

“People who never had faith in the Constitution, nor had they participated in its drafting, are now swearing by it and are laying claim to it. They are now having a discussion on commitment to it. There cannot be a bigger joke than this.”

Yes, it was written 60 years ago. Rahul is 40+ and hence, by your logic, he is not eligible to take oath in the name of the constitution. Extend that logic and Obama could not have become Prez at all. And for England, there could be no PM, for there is no single written constitution.

Additionally, Ambedkar did not want the two words – secular and socialist- in the preamble of the statute book. He felt that he should not impose on the people what their means of conducting business should be. And he was quite right in his opinion. Here is the link to the proceedings in the constituent assembly. You might probably have known about the Constitution of India. It was discussed word by word in this assembly of scholars. Mani, by virtue of his being ideologically inclined towards Pakistan, might not have known about this august assembly. You could consult with Shashi Tharoor – the only guy in your party to have some sense of history in his speeches.

Here is what happened. On 15-Nov-1945, Prof.K.T.Shah from Bihar brought an amendment in the constituent assembly. He wanted to include ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the preamble of the constitution. Dr.Ambedkar didn’t agree and had this to say :

“I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly, are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism whereby particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organized in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself because that is destroying democracy altogether.”

You had also said that the Congress realized the genius of Ambedkar and appointed him the Chairman of the drafting committee. Truth is, as usual, far from it. Ambedkar had to campaign for being added into the constituent assembly. It was Gandhiji’s magnanimity that resulted in Ambedkar being added to the august assembly. You might not know this, neither would anybody in the Congress. Please ask somebody to read you the memoirs of Jagjivan Ram. Let me also quote some more instances where Ambedkar was not interested in the drafting of the constitution as also some instances where he had ‘behaved’ properly with the British:

Dr.Ambedkar, 2-Sep-1953, Rajya Sabha Speech:

“People always keep on saying to me:’O, you are the maker of the Constitution’. My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to do so, I did much against the will… Sir, my friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out..”

British Viceroy of India to The Cabinet mission, 05-Apr-1946 :

“He ( Ambedkar ) thought that if India became independent it would be one of the greatest disasters that could happen..”

British Secretary of State for India to the Governor of Madras : 24-Sep-1933 :

” During the last two or three years I have seen a great deal of Ambedkar,and, like most of my friends, I have been impressed by his ability and his manifest desire to support the British influence in India…”

British Secretary of State to the Viceroy of India, 28-Dec-1932 :

” Ambedkar has behaved very well at the (Round Table ) Conference, and I am most anxious to strengthen his hands in every possible way ..”

Here is what the ‘Architect’ of the constitution had to say about the constituent assembly itself.

Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, All India Scheduled Class Federation, Bombay, 6-May-1945 :

“I must state that I am wholly opposed to the proposal of a Constituent Assembly. It is absolutely superfluous. I regard it as a most dangerous project… I do not see why a Constituent Assembly is at all necessary.Indians are not in the same position as the Fathers of the American Constitution were. So much of the Constitution of India has already been written out in the Government of India Act, 1935. It is my considered opinion that the proposal of Constituent Assembly is more dangerous than profitable and should not be entertained”.

BTW – be more careful with Mani. Two decades ago, he had promised to make Mayiladuthurai, his erstwhile constituency, a Singapore. Thank God that Singapore doesn’t know this, for they would sue Mani for damaging brand Singapore. Mayiladuthurai looks like Singapore of 1900.

Meanwhile, if you have decided to write the epitaph of the Congress, that is fine by me. As the party was founded by a European, A.O.Hume, it is only natural that it be buried by another European. But let it die its natural death. Your son, Rahul is hell bent on killing it. And in India killing is illegal while death due to natural reasons is acceptable. Just listen to his recent Mount Carmel School speech and you will know what I mean.

Probably Mount Carmel questions were asked by Indian girls and hence wouldn’t matter for you. Here is a US journalist on Rahul. As this is by a non-Indian, probably this might help.

I have an idea. Why not make Rahul the ambassador of North Korea? The intolerant PM would be too willing to accede to that demand, for there is no other way of decimating Kim Jong Un. Aamir Khan can keep Rahul company.

At least you could save the embarrassment of having to live with a half-wit son who doesn’t know which nation he belongs to, and files his income tax in the UK while being an MP in India.

First things first. Fire your speech writer. Else, start acting in Tamil films, for Vadivelu doesn’t star nowadays.

Yours Sincerely,
A dark skinned Indian from the South of the Vindhyas.

Churchill’s Secret War – a review

‘Churchills’ Secret War’ by Madhushree Mukerjee has been a great yet melancholic read. The book talks about the complete disdain that Winston Churchill had for India and its people, how he looked the other way when there was an artificial famine created in India during World War II so that the British soldiers got food elsewhere as a result of which many thousands of poor Indians starved to death.

When the world was besieged by fascism and nazism and democracy and equality were threatened by the Axis powers, Britain under Churchill was supposed to be the harbinger of freedom and democracy. Hence they fought against tyranny and in-humanity unleashed by the Axis powers Japan, Germany and Italy while indulging in tyranny themselves in India and other colonies. Britain and Churchill fought for democracy and freedom while denying India, its colony then, those egalitarian concepts.

Churchill was and is still regarded as the hero of World War II and is called as the savior of millions of freedom loving people all over the world, but what is not known is the complete travesty of these very same ideals by him on Britain’s colony, India. The ways he employed to quell the independence movement, the methods he adopted to kill the unity among the different religions in India so that they would remain un-united and thus ensure Britain’s domination of the Indian subcontinent- speak less respectfully of Churchill. His stature as a world statesman certainly takes a dent as one goes through reams and reams of evidence of Churchill’s’ rough handed treatment of the natives.

Churchill was utterly disrespectful of Gandhi’s peaceful movement. He made fun of the Mahatma ( great soul ) many times, called him names, was not in the least bothered about Gandhi’s fast-unto-death protests and wanted to ensure that Gandhi died so that the trouble maker and the ‘personification of evil’ as he described Gandhi ,gets out of the scene. A leader of Churchill’s stature would call Gandhi such and would stoop to such a low level of public discourse and treacherous behavior speaks volumes of the much acclaimed British love for decency in public life. All these he did in the name of his ‘love of Britain’.

Millions of tons of rice and wheat were siphoned off to Egypt and Arabia where the British soldiers were fighting wars when thousands of Indians were starving for food. Churchill authorized these acts despite claiming that the small island was protecting the vast land scape that was India. He was ensuring the complete bankruptcy of India while ensuring that Indian soldiers were fighting for a cause that they were not going to derive any benefit from.

During the great depression, President F.D.Roosevelt banned selling of gold and silver from the US thus strengthening the dollar. But Britain took large quantities of gold and silver from India to the UK thus depleting the purchasing power for the nation expressly for fighting the war. Such callousness during such a time of economic depression  can only be the hallmark of economic exploitation. And Britain excelled in that.

Churchill is quoted as having said that the unity of hindus and muslims would be a deterrent to Britain’s holding on India. He was a strong proponent of the partition of the Indian continent into India and Pakistan on religious lines and all means at his disposal to instill distrust in the minds of the Muslims of India. He transacted in secrecy with Mohammad Ali Jinnah ( the creator of Pakistan ) and ensured that the latter stood fast in his stand for a separate nation for the Muslims. And the world has had enough problems from Pakistan since then.

I adore Churchill for the gift of the gab that he had but I also despise him for his acerbic tongue that he used with impunity to describe Indian leaders and ordinary people from India.

It is a matter of surprise as to why the Indian government, after all these years, has not made such books as part of essential history for the Indian students.

Madhushree Mukerjee has put in exemplary efforts to bring out the happenings of those times. And it shows in the volume of reference material that she quotes from to establish her lines of thought.

An essential read for Indians in particular and students of history in general on the atrocities that ‘democratic’ Britain willingly committed on its crown jewel of a colony – India.

Churchill's Secret War – a review

‘Churchills’ Secret War’ by Madhushree Mukerjee has been a great yet melancholic read. The book talks about the complete disdain that Winston Churchill had for India and its people, how he looked the other way when there was an artificial famine created in India during World War II so that the British soldiers got food elsewhere as a result of which many thousands of poor Indians starved to death.

When the world was besieged by fascism and nazism and democracy and equality were threatened by the Axis powers, Britain under Churchill was supposed to be the harbinger of freedom and democracy. Hence they fought against tyranny and in-humanity unleashed by the Axis powers Japan, Germany and Italy while indulging in tyranny themselves in India and other colonies. Britain and Churchill fought for democracy and freedom while denying India, its colony then, those egalitarian concepts.

Churchill was and is still regarded as the hero of World War II and is called as the savior of millions of freedom loving people all over the world, but what is not known is the complete travesty of these very same ideals by him on Britain’s colony, India. The ways he employed to quell the independence movement, the methods he adopted to kill the unity among the different religions in India so that they would remain un-united and thus ensure Britain’s domination of the Indian subcontinent- speak less respectfully of Churchill. His stature as a world statesman certainly takes a dent as one goes through reams and reams of evidence of Churchill’s’ rough handed treatment of the natives.

Churchill was utterly disrespectful of Gandhi’s peaceful movement. He made fun of the Mahatma ( great soul ) many times, called him names, was not in the least bothered about Gandhi’s fast-unto-death protests and wanted to ensure that Gandhi died so that the trouble maker and the ‘personification of evil’ as he described Gandhi ,gets out of the scene. A leader of Churchill’s stature would call Gandhi such and would stoop to such a low level of public discourse and treacherous behavior speaks volumes of the much acclaimed British love for decency in public life. All these he did in the name of his ‘love of Britain’.

Millions of tons of rice and wheat were siphoned off to Egypt and Arabia where the British soldiers were fighting wars when thousands of Indians were starving for food. Churchill authorized these acts despite claiming that the small island was protecting the vast land scape that was India. He was ensuring the complete bankruptcy of India while ensuring that Indian soldiers were fighting for a cause that they were not going to derive any benefit from.

During the great depression, President F.D.Roosevelt banned selling of gold and silver from the US thus strengthening the dollar. But Britain took large quantities of gold and silver from India to the UK thus depleting the purchasing power for the nation expressly for fighting the war. Such callousness during such a time of economic depression  can only be the hallmark of economic exploitation. And Britain excelled in that.

Churchill is quoted as having said that the unity of hindus and muslims would be a deterrent to Britain’s holding on India. He was a strong proponent of the partition of the Indian continent into India and Pakistan on religious lines and all means at his disposal to instill distrust in the minds of the Muslims of India. He transacted in secrecy with Mohammad Ali Jinnah ( the creator of Pakistan ) and ensured that the latter stood fast in his stand for a separate nation for the Muslims. And the world has had enough problems from Pakistan since then.

I adore Churchill for the gift of the gab that he had but I also despise him for his acerbic tongue that he used with impunity to describe Indian leaders and ordinary people from India.

It is a matter of surprise as to why the Indian government, after all these years, has not made such books as part of essential history for the Indian students.

Madhushree Mukerjee has put in exemplary efforts to bring out the happenings of those times. And it shows in the volume of reference material that she quotes from to establish her lines of thought.

An essential read for Indians in particular and students of history in general on the atrocities that ‘democratic’ Britain willingly committed on its crown jewel of a colony – India.