Saturday, November 29, 2014

इस्लाम अबतक् भारतको खतरनाक क्यों

इस्लाम अबतक् भारतको खतरनाक क्यों 
ये पोस्ट लम्बा है लेकिन मेरा दावा है कि ऐक बार पढना  शुरू करोगे तो पुरा पढोगे...
1378 मेँ भारत से एक हिस्सा अलग हुआ, इस्लामिक राष्ट्र बना - नाम है इरान!
1761 मेँ भारत से एक हिस्सा अलग हुआ, इस्लामिक राष्ट्र बना - नाम है अफगानिस्तान!
1947 मेँ भारत से एक हिस्सा अलग हुआ, इस्लामिक राष्ट्र बना - नाम है पाकिस्तान!
1971 मेँ भारत से एक हिस्सा अलग हुआ, इस्लामिक राष्ट्र बना - नाम हैँ बांग्लादेश!
1952 से 1990 के बीच भारत का एक राज्य इस्लामिक हो गया - नाम है कशमीर!...
और अब उत्तरप्रदेश, आसाम और केरला इस्लामिक राज्य बनने की कगार पर है! और हम जब भी हिँदुओँ को जगाने की बात करते हैँ,सच्चाई बताते हैँ तो कुछ लोग हमेँ RSS, VHP और SHIV-SENA, BJP वाला कहकर पल्ला झाङ लेते हैँ!
हाल की दो महत्वपूर्ण घटनाओ को देश ने जरूर देखा होगा ---
( 1 ) उपराष्ट्रपति हमीद अंसारी ने अपने धर्म के महत्व को समझते हुए दशहरा उत्सव के दौरान आरती उतारने से मना कर दिया क्योकि इस्लाम मे ये करना "मना" है ।
( 2 ) टी॰वी॰ सीरियल बिग बॉस की एक प्रतियोगी गौहर खान ने दुर्गा पुजा करने से मना कर दिया और वो दूर खड़ी रहकर देखती रही, जबकि ये एक कार्य था जिसे करना सभी प्रतियोगी के लिए जरूरी था लेकिन गौहर खान ने इस कार्य को करने से साफ मना कर दिया क्योकि इस्लाम मे ये करना "मना" है ।
मित्रो इन दोनों (हमीद अंसारी व गौहर खान) को मेरा साधुवाद क्योकि दोनों ने किसी कीमत पर भी अपने धर्म से समझौता नहीं किया, चाहे इसके लिए कितनी बड़ी कीमत भी क्यो न चुकनी पड़े । ये घटना उन तथाकथित "सेकुलर" हिन्दुओ के मुह पर जोरदार तमाचा है जो कहते फिरते है की कभी "टोपी" भी पहननी पड़ती है तो कभी "तिलक" भी लगाना पड़ता है , इस घटना मे मीडिया का मौन रहना सबसे
ज्यादा अचरज का विषय है क्योकि सबसे ज्यादा हाय तौबा यही मीडिया वाले मचाते रहे है जब नरेंद्र मोदी जी ने मुल्ला टोपी पहनने से इनकार कर दिया था । उदाहरण लेना है तो मुस्लिम समुदाय के लोगो से सीखो जो अपने धर्म के लिए बड़ी से बड़ी कीमत चुकाने को तैयार रहते है

Friday, November 28, 2014


RELATED KEYWORDS: West-Bengal|Jamaat-Ul-Mujahideen-Bangladesh|ISIS-Operative|Central-Intelligence-Agency|Bangladesh

Jitters over calls to ISIS from Kolkata

KOLKATA: Sleuths claim that they have information of calls from Kolkata to a suspected operative of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in a West Asian country in the last few weeks. The calls were allegedly made after the blast in Burdwan and the ISIS operative is said to have expressed his displeasure at the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) module blowing its cover in
the state.

"The calls were very cleverly routed and we will require more time to trace the caller in Kolkata. The person at the other end of the line seems to be the one who is in charge of recruitment of Indians into the ISIS. Much before the blast at Khagragarh, the Mumbai ATS had traced a man in
Sharjah who is in charge of
the recruitment of Indians. Some youths from Maharashtra are suspected to have slipped into Bangladesh through West Bengal to join the ISIS," said a central intelligence agency source.

"The JMB is suspected to have facilitated this movement both in Bangladesh and West Bengal. In the last few months, youths from Hyderabad — including some women — were apprehended in West Bengal while trying to enter Bangladesh. They said that they planned to join the ISIS. The youths were taken back to Hyderabad and counselled," the source added.

It is not a secret that the JMB in Bangladesh has links with the ISIS, but the calls from Kolkata have established that operatives in West Bengal are also part of the whole plan.

Experts in the intelligence fraternity say that it is from the ISIS that the JMB picked up the concept of an Islamic state or Caliphate in Bangladesh extending to parts of Bengal.

"It is a matter of concern that the ISIS is monitoring developments in India. This proves that it has plans for India as well. There has been some indoctrination about ISIS among youths in the bordering districts of Malda, Murshidabad and Nadia. JMB believes that it will succeed in including these districts in the Caliphate," the source said.

"It is unfortunate that some people fail to see the true picture but the danger is very real. The first part of the plan will be to create severe chaos in Bangladesh and get a section of military officers, both serving and retired, to stage a coup. The next part is to fan the flames of fundamentalism to such an extent that the heat is felt across the border in India. JMB will then turn its attention to India, particularly Bengal. There are several JMB modules operating in the state. They are working independent of each other with the sole objective of creating an army to rise in favour of a religious state," he added.
    Stay updated on the go with The Times of India’s mobile apps. Click here to download it for your device.


    Sunday, November 23, 2014


    by Rajeev Srinivasan  Nov 20, 2014 16:01 IST
    There is an unfortunate hoo-haa about German and Sanskrit in Kendriya Vidyalayas (KV), which is putting a negative spin on generally-positive Indo-German relations. It has even prompted German Chancellor Angela Merkel to question whether their language is being disrespected in India. Which of course is far from the truth, and is a storm in a teacup raised by the usual malign suspects in the media. Best to consider the forest (the desirability of Indo-German ties) over the trees (an ill-advised, illegal move by the UPA in 2011 to mess with the three-language formula, and its inevitable reversal now).
    For several reasons, I find the fuss baffling. First, this is merely the reversal of an ill-considered and harmful – therefore typical UPA – step, dissing Indian tradition and replacing it with something European. Second, there is considerable value to Sanskrit that most of us are unaware of, especially if you look at the technical aspects of formal language theory.
    People have thundered that the Sanskrit decision is preventing Indian students from aspiring to go to German universities, which is not true – most university education in Germany is conducted in the medium of English. Besides, if you want to learn German, you can still opt for it: it is not banished from the KVs.
    Others have suggested that German is a global language, and therefore – they implied – Sanskrit is inferior to German. Which is not quite true: only a fraction of the people even in Europe speak German, and almost all large German companies conduct business in English. I used to work for Siemens in California, and not knowing German was not a big handicap in communicating with my colleagues, even when I traveled to Germany.
    Others complained that this is a burden on students who have already opted for German, which is true. But then it is only since 2011 that German has been made available in all Kendriya Vidyalayas, replacing Sanskrit.
    That is the crux of the matter: German replaced Sanskrit in the entire KV system recently. And why was that? Where was the uproar when, apparently on a whim, the previous UPA government decided to replace Sanskrit in mid-stream with German? And why German? Why not Japanese, or Chinese, or Arabic or Spanish, all of which have more commercial and job opportunities for young people? What was the rationale in choosing German?
    The KV system, let us remember, has to be uniform all over the country: you cannot have a different curriculum in different states. Thus, if you switch languages, it apparently has to be a toggle effect, and teachers who teach X have to switch to teaching Y.
    This is precisely what happened under UPA to Sanskrit. Why is nobody asking why the Kabil Sibal-led UPA ministry surreptitiously swapped Sanskrit out and swapped German into the curriculum in 2011? Did that not do much damage to the students desirous of studying Sanskrit? Did it not force Sanskrit teachers to suddenly become German teachers?
    Furthermore, did the Sibal coup, of the KVs signing an MoU with the Goethe Institute of the Max Mueller Bhavan in 2011, violate the hitherto sacrosanct Three Language Formula, which many of us have been forced into? Growing up in Kerala, according to this formula, my first language (yes, first!) language was mandated to be Hindi, my second language was English, and my third was Malayalam.
    In fact, I could have avoided learning Malayalam altogether, because we had a choice of French, Tamil, Sanskrit and so on as optional third languages. So why is it not acceptable if the KVs now offer German as an optional, not a compulsory language? If there is enough demand, the schools will find enough German teachers: that is called the free market, supply /demand, Economics 101.
    The Three Language Formula suggested Hindi, English and (preferably) a South Indian language for Hindi speaking students, and Hindi, English, and the regional language for non-Hindi speaking students. The whole idea was to force ‘national integration’, Congress-style. Whether that did so is questionable, but certainly introducing German (or French or Chinese or Japanese) would be unlikely to do any ‘national integration’. So ipso facto the idea of bringing in German is against the law, because German is not a regional language in India.
    Now, I am quite a fan of the Germans, because of their diligence and methodical nature, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into a fondness for German, which is a bit difficult. I had to study technical German at IIT Madras, and all I remember now is ‘The chemische industrie produziert synthetische stoffe’. German and Sanskrit for Indians are like apples and oranges.
    I contended elsewhere in 2000 that a language has five possible reasons for it to be valuable to a populace:
    • A transactional language
    • A literary language
    • A liturgical language
    • A cultural language
    • A conquering language
    German would be a transactional language or lingua franca with only a limited set of people: Germans, some Swiss, some Dutch, I believe. It is a good literary language, but it does not jell greatly with the Indian ethos. It is clearly not a liturgical language.
    A cultural language is one that resonates with the culture of the people: for instance, if you read Guenter Grass’s magnificent works such as The Tin Drum and The Flounder, you can see it is replete with details of the history, the cuisine, and even the crops and fish of Kashubia (a land I have never read about elsewhere) and specifically of Danzig, now Gdansk.
    English is the typical conquering language, which is imposed on (and eventually, as is evident, internalized by) the conquered – as in India, Ireland, Scotland, and elsewhere. Germans didn’t conquer India, so it is not a conquering language either.
    If you look at Sanskrit carefully, you can see that it is many of the above: a lingua franca for most of India’s history, undoubtedly the greatest literary language of India and almost certainly of the entire classical world, the liturgical language of Hindus, and the cultural language that links the conceptual entity of Bharat.
    Was Sanskrit also a conquering language? Some, still harboring notions about the Aryan Invasion Fantasy, would say so, but it is increasingly evident that it was the language of the natives, not imported by some "Aryans thundering down the Khyber Pass in their horse-drawn chariots" in the bizarre imaginations of certain "eminent historians" who are past their shelf-lives. One of the (intentional) mistakes people make is in imagining that Sanskrit was only a Hindu liturgical language. Far from it. As this tweet suggests, the body of non-religious literature in Sanskrit, including everything from texts for metallurgy to off-color jokes about bodily functions, is immense. For instance there was the beautiful erotic poetry written by one Dharmakirti; it turned out the same Dharmakirti was a scholarly Buddhist logician!
    1. संस्कृतसंवर्धनम् retweeted
    Hashmi Shams Tabreed ‏@hstabreed
    Critics of Sanskrit hate it for its religious association not realizing its richness. Music, Science, Arts, Sanskrit Literature has it all
    Sanskrit’s other claim to fame is that it is the most scientific human language of all time. I will have to delve into my computer science background and formal language theory to explain this. I have heard people say, "XYZ says Sanskrit is the best language to do Artificial Intelligence with" or words to that effect. This is not strictly speaking true: for AI, you need logic-based languages such as LISP or Prolog.
    Paninian or Classical Sanskrit (as contrasted with Vedic Sanskrit) is the most refined and precise human language ever invented. It has an astonishing property known as a "context-free grammar", and so far as I know, it is the only human language that has ever had this. Context-free means that the language is utterly unambiguous, and every sentence in it can be derived precisely from a set of rules. In Paninian Sanskrit, as embodied in the Ashtadhyayi, there are 3959 rules.
    Its context-free nature comes from an audacious attempt by Panini to encapsulate the infinite variety of expression in language in a finite number of rules. Even now, it is difficult to imagine that somebody, 2,500 years ago, had the chutzpah to attempt to condense infinity into a finite set of rules. This idea could have only arisen in ancient India, with its familiarity with the mathematical notion of infinity.
    This idea, that Panini codified, was independently re-discovered in the 1950s by IBM engineers, as they tried to figure out a way to communicate with computers. What they needed was to find a way to instruct computers in totally unambiguous fashion. So Backus and Naur came up with context-free grammars (there was some work by Noam Chomsky at MIT in this area), and lo and behold, they were astonished to find out Panini had anticipated them by two and a half millennia!
    The human-programmable computer languages that exist today, say C++ or Java or Ruby, can be described precisely in a few hundred rules. This precision allows these languages (and Paninian Sanskrit) to be lexically analyzed by a parser, which can then create a semantic tree structure that encodes the underlying 'meaning' of the statement (or program). That semantic tree than then be translated precisely into machine code (binary, ie 0 and 1, or hexadecimal, ie 16 characters, 0123456789ABCDEF) which will then run on the machine.The above is what compilers do – the programs that translate human-readable languages into the incomprehensible machine code (or slightly less obscure Assembly Language) that machines can understand. I worked on compiler construction for several years, and they are among the most sophisticated software in regular use.
    So what exactly does "context-free" mean? It means that the meaning doesn’t depend on contextual knowledge or common sense. Obviously human languages are context-sensitive: you just have to know certain things as a user of the language or else you will be confused. Here is an example of two sentences in English:
    1. Fruit flies like an apple
    2. Time flies like an arrow
    The two sentences are lexically identical, but to the human reader, based on contextual knowledge, they are vastly different. But to a computer, which has no context, they are identical. If the computer is fed the first and told that fruit flies are a kind of fly and that apples are fruits, it will create certain semantic model. Then, when given the second sentence, it will conclude that 'time flies' are a kind of fly and that arrows are fruits!
    It is essentially impossible to write such ambiguous sentences in Paninian Sanskrit. That is one of the reasons why word order doesn't matter in Paninian Sanskrit, as it does in English (imagine "Rama killed Ravana" and "Ravana killed Rama" as examples).
    That someone millennia ago was able to conceptualize, and even more astonishingly, create a Grand Unified Theory of Language is simply stunning. Let us note that even a widely acknowledged genius like Albert Einsten failed to come up with a Grand Unified Theory of Physics, even though he tried hard. Arguably, Panini’s successful effort then was the greatest accomplishment of a single mind in all of recorded history: creating something so advanced that it took 2500 years to figure out how to use it!
    There is another reason for the perfection of Sanskrit, and that is the logical nature of Devanagari. There is no other alphabet that so scientifically orders different sound families horizontally, and the associated types (dental, retroflex etc.) horizontally. Just consider the Roman script – it has a randomly assembled set of sounds, in no particular order, in stark contrast to the rigorous order of Devanagari.
    Many of us have studied another rigorously ordered scientific table that has horizontal families and vertical variants or types: that is the Periodic Table of Elements of Mendeleev, which was also so advanced that he was able to group the elements and suggest that there were gaps where new elements, yet to be discovered, belonged. The resemblance is no coincidence: Mendeelev was strongly influenced by Devanagari, and he acknowledged as much in his terminology.
    Where there were gaps, he would call the missing, to-be-discovered elements eka-boron, or dvi-silicon or tria-carbon, consciously using the Sanskrit words for one, two, three etc. Later, these anticipated elements were indeed discovered and given new names. So here’s an example of what Rajiv Malhotra might call "digestion" of Indic ideas into western memes, although, to be fair, there is indirect credit.
    From several points of view, thus, Sanskrit is not only the one candidate that deserves to be the national language – much as Israelis resurrected the once-moribund Hebrew – but it is by many measures the most perfect language ever invented: truly samskrt or civilized. There should be no reason to fuss even if it is imposed; much less when it is merely being put back into the syllabus where it used to be.


    Dr. Seshachalam Dutta

       “Fools come to power when dynasties rule”: _ Jawaharlal Nehru.
        Absolutely, fools did come to power from his dynasty!

                When the newly elected Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, delivered his inaugural address, while most of the defeated Congress leaders bit their tongues, some, regarded as intellectuals of the party tried to critique the speech finding faults with it. One of them, Kapil Sibal, erudite and mostly vocal, despite his humiliating defeat summoned the courage to devalue the speech saying “it was empty” and that Modi had failed to acknowledge the leadership of Nehru while paying tributes to all past leaders. Essentially he faulted Modi for the conspicuous absence of mention of Nehru in his speech. We may ignore the part of emptiness of his critique but analyze why Modi did not acknowledge the contributions of Nehru to nation building and, more importantly, why he should not have acknowledged the debt of the nation to Nehru! The whole 2014 election and resurgence of democratic new India is obviously overthrow of the Nehru dynasty foisted on the country for more than half a century. The epochal election and its results are symbolic of a clear defeat for everything Nehru had created through his dynasty and what his dynasty stood for.

    We will examine the political character of aristocratic Nehru, a successful politician but a poor statesman; power hungry, lacking in vision and foresight and overall a veritable failure, while Modi- is a quintessential Swayam Sevak who dedicated his life for the service of the have-nots in the Nation upholding the ideals of Sangh, uncorrupted and incorruptible.

    To illustrate the mindset of Nehru we shall look at his inaugural speech of 1947, regarded as one of the oratorical masterpieces listed in the anthologies, judged by the artistry and rhetorical trivia.

    Nehru spoke:
    “Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now comes the time when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of the Nation, long suppressed finds utterance.” A little later in that speech he said “At the dawn of history India started on her unending quest, …….and she never lost sight of that quest or has forgotten the ideals which gave her strength.”

    Modi’s quest is for those very forgotten ideals, rather than engage in an adventure into marsh-land of dialectical materialism which Nehru wants India to step into calling it a “new order”. This was Nehru’s slogan, mildly termed as “secularism”.

    What did he mean by destiny, a divine ordinance? Nehru was a self-styled atheist mildly portrayed as an agnostic in contrast to Mahatma Gandhi and Modi. Then, who fashioned the destiny? How can an atheist reconcile with destiny? In the final hours of dawn of freedom, was it fashioned by the failed Indian leaders? To begin with, it was the midnight in India, not the time for the world to sleep, as Americans were breaking for lunch and Europeans were at breakfast and Japan woke up at the same time. It was the night of no celebration for millions of Indians in the Indian subcontinent where they were driven out of their homes, dispossessed of their fortunes and even livelihood, their women raped and men massacred in hundreds of thousands. He glossed over their destiny or dismal plight that was not providential but was the direct outcome and result of the greed for quick grab of political power and incompetence of their leaders. Nehru could not refer to this tragedy reference to which was conspicuous by its absence in his “inaugural” address as he was the master sloganeer, he designed the slogans of communalism and secularism and nothing in between. His slogans were based on simplistic concrete and distorted thinking.

    When Hindus fight Muslims it is a “communal act” and to talk of God in public pulpit is against secularism and is a “communal expression.” Yet his followers among the Muslims were the rabid, narrow minded fanatic lot, which included those who wanted world wide Khalifat (Califate) which exactly is the slogan of the ISIS in Syria and Iraq! Even the architect of Pakistan Jinnah was against Khalifat.  Later one of his Muslim followers of this persuasion became the President of India. For him dividing Hindus on Caste lines and setting one against the other is not communal and his Government continued to do exactly that and that is how his dynasty depended on the solid block of votes of residual Muslim minority exploiting their fears and uncertainties, balanced by the fragmentation of Hindus. That was the reason he was vociferous when Muslims were criticized and he raised the slogan of secularism against Hindus.

    For him, history begins with him even though he speaks of the “forgotten ideals which gave her (India) strength”. These are ideals of inexorable Hindu culture of past. For him, ‘this one age ends and new one begins with him’ the only leader of bygone days of India was Gandhi, of whom he extolled that “the ambition of the greatest man of our generation to wipe every tear from every eye.”  There is no record of this attribution to Gandhi; even Lord Buddha did not claim this. He called Gandhi, the architect of our freedom, the “Father of our Nation.” “We have been unworthy followers of his.” That much was true. Gandhi was a man of God, a true Hindu. To the dislike of Nehru he spoke of Ram Rajya and worked for the uplifting of Hindu untouchables. Nehru wondered why he was wasting his time on such projects. With all the talk of communalism, the worst was the consequences of not carrying the untouchable for the fight against the British. At the political front, Ambedkar and Jogendranath Mandal in Bengal were supporting the division of India on the promise of representation of Harijans in Government. Mandal became a cabinet Minister in East Pakistan. No one knew, in the plebiscite, how many of the Harijans were beguiled to vote to join Pakistan in critical border areas. Gandhi, a master politician was acutely aware of this and Nehru had no vision of the consequences of ignoring the issue. He had veritable contempt for the Hindus, or any reform of their society.

    On this occasion on August 15th 1947 we see the contrast in the expressions of other great leaders in the assembly. The president of India Rajendraprasad spoke on the same Midnight of August 15th of 1947; the speech was somber and devoid of flourishes. He remembered the sacrifices made by the ‘patriots’ who faced bullets, those who walked to the gallows and ‘others who endured living death in the cells of Andamans.’ He further said, “The country, which was made by God and Nature to be one, stands divided today, separation from near and dear ones….I would be untrue to myself if I did not confess to the sense of sorrow in this separation”. Nehru has no such sentiment of God’s work or sorrow for separation in his speech! Nehru said “We think of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by political boundaries and who unhappily cannot share at present in the freedom that has come. They are of us and will remain of us whatever may happen”. What did he mean when he said “our brothers and sisters who …can not share?” Muslim brothers got their country and they were celebrating at the same hour.  Whom was he referring to? He could not acknowledge they were the unfortunate Hindus; to say so is communal! He never mentioned their unbearable suffering and destitution caused by the loss of their land, properties, and damage to their wives, children and families.

    Then Vice-president Radhakrishnan spoke in somber tones mindful of the misery faced by the new citizens of the “independent” India. He reminded British did their part to divide the Nation, but we had our part to accept the blame. He boldly acknowledged the tragedy of the hour. ““While India is attaining freedom, she is attaining it in a manner which does not produce joy in the hearts of the people or a radiant smile on their faces,” he said. He called attention to the National faults of Indians, ‘domestic despotism, obscurantism.’ Even hardly an hour passed after getting freedom, he cautioned the new nation against “corruption in high places’ and ‘nepotism’.

    It was indeed nepotism that promoted Nehru’s sister to Ambassadorial post to Moscow where she lived in such opulence that Russians wondered how a newly developing country could affords such luxuries. He carefully promoted his daughter who had no respect for democracy to succeed him, and who later exercised ruthless oppression of civil rights of Indian people through “emergency” and “abrogation of constitution.”  It was Nehru’s nepotism again, promoting Gen. Kaul, a relative of Nehru who bungled Indo-China war. Finally, the Vice-President Radhakrishnan said that “we take pride in the antiquity of this land …….at the moment it stands, still responding to the thrill of the same great goal”, not stepping into new order of Marxian Dialectical materialism of Nehru. This is in stark contrast to Nehru’s frame of mind.

    Was Gandhi regarded as Father of the Nation? This appellation was offensive for many segments who were not Congressmen. Hindu Mahasabha never accepted or endorsed this title, or Muslim league or those in favor of Partition of India including communists.  The communist leader Dange gained fame among world communists for comparing Gandhi to Marx unfavorably. Even RSS which was the largest nonpolitical organization, in spite of their respect for him did not accept this characterization... Gandhi universally was accepted as a foremost leader who awakened the conscience of the Nation that Indians should not be subject to colonial rule. He was mostly successful in uniting diverse groups, including, Muslims, Hindus, socialists and communists. As a human being, he had his own follies as any other human being. He strongly dictated who should be leaders in the party. On one occasion, he set up a little known candidate against Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and as his candidate was defeated, he bemoaned that it was his defeat! He named Nehru as his successor for leadership and prevented democratic challenge to Nehru by Sardar Patel twice.  Otherwise Patel who was elected by the Congress high command would have been the legitimately elected Prime Minister of India, and history of India would have been

    Although Nehru carried the most reactionary Muslims, he was not able to convince that they would get fair share in the power of the new Government. Gandhi sang songs that said Ram and Rahim and Ishwar and Allah were the same with no takers among the Muslims for this attempt to get folk music to bring the theology of Muslims closer to theological concepts of Hindus. Nehru knew quite well that Gandhi had failed in befriending the Muslims. Finally when Congress won the general election in 1937 defeating Muslim league with the overwhelming Muslim support, Muslims were disillusioned by Nehru’s empty rhetoric of “communalism-secularism” slogan also which was the beginning of the thrust for the partition of India.

    Finally when Jinnah emerged as a Muslim leader, it was too late to prevent the breakup of the country by 1946. It was the “communalism” of Nehru’s party that lost the support of Muslims who gave an overwhelming victory in 1937 elections.  According to the chronicles of partition by Arthur Hanson, “In the final hours of partition, Gandhi met Viceroy Mountbatten and proposed that Jinnah be the Prime Minister of undivided India.” By then it was too late and Jinnah was ignored by Nehru and Nehru had negotiated the transfer of power to himself directly with Mountbatten. {This, one Kerala journalist called “backstabbing of Gandhi by Nehru,” which prompted violent response from Congress recently.}

    In the Correspondence with Iqbal, Jinnah complains of Nehru who arrogantly dismissed him in his approaches. Probably, the triumph of Congress against Muslim league gave him the confidence to treat Jinnah as a non-entity. This aggravated Jinnah and caused him to fanatically seek partition. All in all Nehru owes his political fortunes to Gandhi. But there is nothing common between the character of Gandhi and Nehru. Gandhi was totally dedicated for the country and never aspired for power. Nehru who was hungry for power never wanted a delay in the transition of power; even after suffering paralytic stroke he never resigned and was upset with the mention of a successor. When Gandhi died his worldly possessions were a pair of eyeglasses, worn shoes and a pocket watch. Gandhi left nothing for his children.

    Modi similarly is closer to the ideals of Gandhi. In contrast when Nehru died his estate was 9 crore rupees valued many times that amount in today’s rate. Not a penny was given to any charity and Indira Gandhi was to inherit the entire bootie.

    When Modi came to visit U.S a few years ago he was hosted by a physician couple. He came with a small bag and said that he had to wash his clothes every day because; he would wear one pair and washed the other daily! For decades he dedicated his services to RSS work on meager rations. Even though he calls himself as Chaiwallah, a self denigration indicating modesty, he earned a masters degree in political science. He is more a Gandhiite in his life style than a Nehruvian.

    Nehru had an air of aristocracy. For all the talk of dynasty, he was a grandson of a “low echelon office worker”, a Punkha puller. (When Shyamprasad                                                                                                                                                                 Mukarji mentioned this on the floor of the parliament, Nehru vent into a rage!) He, on the other hand bequeathed Rs. 90,000,000 to his daughter and planned for her succession creating a dynasty with a coterie of sycophants; even though he said, ‘Fools comes to power when dynasties rule’. Fools did come to power and finally it took sixty long years to dismantle the corrupt dynasty...with the victory of Modi.

    There is hardly anything to draw inspiration and emulate Nehru for Modi. Nehru was a total failure both in domestic and International policies. He failed to keep Kashmir totally in India creating an ambiguous status. If the provinces in Pakistan were given the same status as Kashmir, India would not have been divided. Nehru insisted on a constitution that gave total power for the Center. This is the power he used to abolish the duly elected communist Government in Kerala by presidential order without justification.

    It is a frequent refrain from many supporters of Nehru crediting him for establishing democracy in India and as an architect of Indian democracy. Even before Independence, Indians were so enlightened that they elected congress against Muslim league and Justice party composed of hench men of British, Rajahs, Jamindars and aristocrats, as early as in 1937 election, in spite of wide spread arrests and intimidation by the British Government. Instead of advancing democratic way of life, Nehru ruled with the same repressive laws used by British, using section 144 to arrest without warrant and extended jail terms for political opponents. He imprisoned his own friend the Chief Minister of Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah. Press and media were totally controlled. There was only one Government radio station and later one Television station and none others were licensed. All the photo events and receptions both abroad and in India were constantly displayed to brainwash the people to depict Nehru as a world leader. The trick was later tried by Sonia Gandhi to project Rahul as a peoples’ leader by using state controlled Television which only services mainly rural India. The only way people of India addressed their grievances was by Hartals, stopping the trains and burning the buses for there were no outlets for expression of dissent.  In Later years, in order to avoid International condemnation, he made the State Governments to arrest, first RSS and then communists; the latter were released and killed in “false encounters.” This prompted the creation of Naxalite, a communist terrorist group.  Any citizen, even students would not get passport to travel abroad as a matter of right, as in British Raj. The Supreme Court decision in 1965 forced the Government to issue passport as meeting the recognized citizen’s right, which the Government grudgingly accepted.  Still to date obtaining a passport in India is not as hassle free compared to advanced countries.  This was the record of Nehru’s civil rights legacy.

    On Financial side, he established permit raj, Government control of every private enterprise. One could not build even petroleum station (gas pump) without a permit from the central Government, leading to extensive corruption; He talked of socialism (a slogan from Hitler to newly founded African dictators) and practiced crony monopolistic capitalism of the established business houses. Modi has nothing to emulate Nehru in all this. Modi has seen how other Eastern Industrial nations advanced in free economy and India with all resources fell behind countries like Singapore and South Korea. India was set back decades economically because of Nehru’s rule.

    Nehru was a total failure in foreign policy too. If Nehru were not the prime minister of India, it would have been a member of United Nations Security Council and also a nuclear power like China. India would have been grandfathered like China as a free Nuclear power. He postured like a world leader on the wings of China. He preached Neutrality in International politics but failed to maintain his stand leaning toward Russia for support. Tellingly, UN security council passed resolutions condemning India three times on Kashmir Issue and was only saved by the courtesy of Russian veto.  Similarly Russian veto saved UN sanctions on the issue of annexation of Goa. Nehru was out of touch with the realities of contemporary world order. After touring the country with the Chinese premier with a slogan “Indu-Chini bhaayi-bhaayi” (Indians and chinese are brothers], China Invaded India in 1962, there was no one to support India, not even Russia and US had to come to rescue despite contempt for Nehru. History of Indo-China conflict is locked up in secrecy, so after 60 years we still would not know who initiated the conflict! Thus even in foreign policy, he is not an example for Modi.

    Modi is a staunch Hindu Nationalist proud of Hindu Heritage. It was galling to hear Nehru speak of secularism to Hindus, as it was preaching to the choir. Hindutwa is the most tolerant of all religions. There is no other religion that advocates tolerance like Hinduism does, as illustrated by the verse:

    Na Buddhibhedam janayed ajnanam karmasanginaam
    Yojayet sarva karmaani vidwaan yukta samaacharaan ( Bhaghavad Gita 326,)
    Also: Prakrutir gunasammohaah sajjente gunakarmasu
    taan akrutsnavido mandaan skrutsn-navichaalayet (Gita 3,29} Meaning:

    Do not disturb or the mind of an ignorant man, if he is engaged in the performance right and noble acts. He may be a dullard, but an accomplished wise man should not unsettle his mind. Meaning such person may be engaged imperfect form of religious beliefs, by unsettling with scholarly confrontation, he may not be corrected, but otherwise may refrain from good and noble deeds he would performing. Thus he is lost to both worlds. He might be transformed by the example of the conduct of the scholarly wise man. So Hindu should never attack any one following other faiths however imperfect he notices them to be. So Hindus never convert or attack other faiths. It should be recognized with some pride that Hindus are unique people in this aspect. Hindus presume that faith leads to goodness in people so attacking their faith or changing it will deprive them of their faith as well as their goodness. To lecture secularism to Hindus is like preaching to a choir or even an insult. Hindus tolerated such insult by Nehru and his dynasty of six decades or more.

    So Nehru should have addressed his sermons on secularism to his Muslim friends where he consistently failed. His dynasty followed the same approach to Hindus and their “secularism” is to legislate that Muslims can have four wives at a time. The slogan is so disingenuous that they turned around and subsidized Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca with taxpayer’s public funds. No other political party in any country that follows the principle of separation of Church and State (the true meaning of secularism) would sink so low.

    Ideals of Modi are Vivekananda, Subhash Chandra Bose, Lokamaanya Tilak, Arabindo, who predated Gandhi in fighting British. On National construction his ideals are Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru has no place among the nation builders. He needs to tender no apologies for not including Nehru in his speech. If he mentioned Nehru in his speech he would be considered a hypocrite.

    Reply to author;