Revealed: Nehru wanted to scuttle Sardar’s Hyderabad plan

by Kumar Chellappan

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister of India, whose 137th birth anniversary is on October 31, was insulted, humiliated and disgraced by the then Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, during a Cabinet meeting. “You are a complete communalist and I’ll never be a party to your suggestions and proposals,” Nehru shouted at Patel during a crucial Cabinet meeting to discuss the liberation of Hyderabad by the Army from the tyranny of the Razakkars, the then Nizam’s private army.

“A shocked Sardar Patel collected his papers from the table and slowly walked out of the Cabinet room. That was the last time Patel attended a Cabinet meeting. He also stopped speaking to Nehru since then,” writes MKK Nair, a 1947 batch IAS officer, in his memoirs “With No Ill Feeling to Anybody”. Nair had close ties with both Sardar and VP Menon, his Man Friday.

Though Nair has not written the exact date of the above mentioned Cabinet meeting, it could have happened during the weeks prior to the liberation of Hyderabad by the Indian Army. Operation Polo, the mission to liberate Hyderabad from the Nizam, began on September 13, 1948 and culminated on September 18. While Sardar Patel wanted direct military action to liberate Hyderabad from the rape and mayhem perpetrated by the 2,00,000 Razakars, Nehru preferred the United  Nations route.

Nair writes that Nehru’s personal hatred for Sardar Patel came out in the open on December 15, 1950, the day the Sardar breathed his last in Bombay (now Mumbai). “Immediately after he got the news about Sardar Patel’s death, Nehru sent two notes to the Ministry of States. The notes reached VP Menon, the then Secretary to the Ministry. In one of the notes, Nehru had asked Menon to send the official Cadillac car used by Sardar Patel to the former’s office. The second note was shocking. Nehru wanted government secretaries desirous of attending Sardar Patel’s last rites to do so at their own personal expenses.

“But Menon convened a meeting of all secretaries and asked them to furnish the names of those who want to attend the last rites of Patel. He did not mention anything about the note sent by Nehru. Menon paid the entire cost of the air tickets for those secretaries who expressed their wish to attend Sardar’s last journey. This further infuriated Nehru,” Nair has written about his memoirs in the corridors of power in New Delhi.

Nair’s friendship with Patel began during the former’s posting in Hyderabad as a civilian officer of the Army. “I was a bachelor and my guest house was a rendezvous of all those in the inner circle of the then Nizam of Hyderabad. Every night they arrived with bundles of currency notes. We gambled and played flash and the stakes were high. During the game I served them the finest Scotch. After a couple of drinks, the princes and the junior Nawabs would open their minds and reveal the secret action plans being drawn out in the Nizam’s palace. Once intoxicated, they would tell me about the plans to merge Hyderabad with Pakistan after independence. This was information that no one outside the Nawab’s close family members and the British secret service were privy to. But I ensured that this information reached directly to Sardar Patel and thus grew our relation,” writes Nair.

The relation between Nair and Sardar Patel was such that the former’s director general in the ministry told him once: “Sardar Patel keeps an open house for you.” Nair, who worked in various ministries during his three-decade long civil service career, writes that the formation of North East Frontier Service under the Ministry of External Affairs by Nehru and the removal of the affairs of the Jammu & Kashmir from the Ministry of Home Affairs are the major reasons behind the turmoil in both the regions. 

“This was done by Nehru to curtail the wings of Sardar Patel,” Nair has written. Though Sardar Patel was known as a no-nonsense man devoid of any sense of humour, Nair has written about lighter moments featuring him. The one centres around VP Menon with whom Patel had a special relation. Menon had to face the ire of Nesamani Nadar, a Congress MP from Kanyakumari, during his visit to Thiruvananthapuram in connection with the reorganisation of States. Nadar barged into Menon’s suit in the State Gust House and shouted at him for not obeying his diktats. Menon, who was enjoying his quota of sun-downer, asked Nadar to get out of his room. A furious Nadar sent a six-page letter to Sardar Patel trading all kinds of charges against Menon. “He was fully drunk when I went to meet him in the evening and he abused me using the filthiest of languages,” complained Nadar in his letter.

Sardar Patel, who read the letter in full asked his secretary V Shankar, an ICS officer: “Shankar, does VP take drinks?” Shankar, who was embarrassed by the question, had to spill the beans. “Sir, Menon takes a couple of drinks in the evening,” he said. Sardar was curious to know what was Menon’s favorite drink. Shankar replied that Menon preferred only Scotch. “Shankar, you instruct all government secretaries to take Scotch in the evening,” Sardar told Shankar. Nair writes that this anecdote was a rave in the Delhi evenings for a number of years!

Balraj Krishna (92), who authored Sardar’s biography, told The Pioneer that Nehru was opposed to Babu Rajendra Prasad, the then President, travelling to Bombay to pay his last respects to Patel. “But Prasad insisted and made it to Bombay,” said Krishna. MV Kamath, senior journalist, said though Nehru too attended the funeral of Patel, it was C Rajagopalachari, who delivered the funeral oration.

Prof MGS Narayanan, former chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research, said there was no reason to disbelieve what Nair has written. “But his memoirs did not get the due recognition it deserved. It is a historical chronicle of pre-and post independent India,” he said. 

 

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Bangladesh Begum’s India Visit: Real Or Ephimeral? – Analysis

Can ideology and political agenda change overnight? At least, that is the message Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) Chairperson and former Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia carried when she arrived in India on October 28 for an eight-day visit.

Begum Zia came at the invitation of the Government of India. There have been some comments that this is a change in India’s Bangladesh strategy. This is not correct.

Certainly, following the assassination of Sk. Mujibur Rahaman in August 1975, New Delhi felt betrayed. The operation to kill Sk. Mujib was a cooperative venture between the USA (read mainly Secretary of State Henry Kissenger), Pakistan, and a group of Bangladeshis who pretended to be pro-liberation but were trying to reverse history. Hence, not only the government of India but the Indian people at large burst out with a series of emotions.

Relations began to improve when Gen. H.M. Ershad became president of Bangladesh. From the 1990s, the Indian government adopted the policy that India will be nice to Bangladesh and ‘hope Bangladesh’ would reciprocate. And this policy was irrespective of the political party in power at the centre.

With economic liberalization in the early 1990s under Prime Minister Narsimha Rao and architected by Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, India began to grow. But the growth story would be a greater success if the neighbours also grew together.

But that did not happen. Pakistan expectedly remained the spoiler. But there was a great opportunity for Bangladesh to join India. The entire Bangladeshi policies went through a regressive storm, especially during the BNP’s rule from 2001 to 2006. The ruling four-party alliance comprising mainly of the BNP and JEI marked India as the main enemy. Those were tense years. The JEI spoke about winning the majority in Parliament by 2013 and bringing Bangladesh under Sharia law. Some BNP leaders also floated an idea of confederation type of relationship with Pakistan.

The BNP-JEI coalition gave enough opportunities to India to react strongly on the ground. It was not only of attacks on Hindus just after the elections which saw Hindu migration to India. An Indian Border Security Force (BSF) officer was abducted from Indian Territory by Bangladeshi villagers assisted by the Bangladeshi border force, the BDR, tortured and killed, and his body taken around tied to a bamboo pole, and photographs widely printed in the media. Had the BSF retaliated, the BDR would have been routed. But calmer political counsel prevailed in New Delhi. Then were many other incidents of provocation.

A major insurgency in North-East India was prevented when ten-truck loads of arms landed in the Chittagong port in April 2004 was accidentally detected. The BNP-JEI government tried to paper over the incident. These arms were meant for the Assam insurgents ULFA, the Naga insurgents and others.

This case is in the court now, and witness’ statements reveal that those involved include Begum Zia’s elder son Tareq Reheman, de facto leader of the BNP, the then Minister of State for Home, Lutffozaman Babar, JEI Chief Motiur Reheman Nizami, and a host of intelligence officers. Pakistan’s ISI funded the operation through a media front. The arms were brought from China.

During her meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid, Begum Zia assured they will support anti-terrorism policy and would not allow Bangladesh’s territory to be used against India. When asked by journalists on the BNP’s position on the Chittagong arms haul case, one of Khaleda Zia’s spokesmen said if they returned to power the case would be reinvestigated by an independent body. This gives lie to all the nice pronouncements.’

Khaleda Zia is on record to say that if her party came to power all agreements with Indian signed by the present Awami League government would be annulled. The BNP opposed the transport corridor for India to its North-East on several grounds. The most important reason proferred was if an India-China war broke out, India will be able transfer arms and troops quickly through Bangladesh to its border, and it would annoy China.

The BNP cannot do without the JEI and the other anti-India radical parties. The JEI has its fixed agenda and has close relations with the terrorist organizations some of which have begun to stir against. Connections of some of the BNP leaders including that of Tareq Reheman with terrorist organizations is well known and recorded. BNP-JEI terrorists form a triangular relationship which Khaleda Zia cannot discard. She knows that if she does so, she will be creating two new and dangerous enemies. She is caught in that vicious trap. Khaleda cannot afford to support the Liberation War Crimes trial because it would be counter-productive.

Begum Khaleda Zia’s sudden change is a riddle. Before coming to India she visited China on a party invitation and a high level Chinese led by Politburo Standing Committee member Li Changchun was in Dhaka and held discussions with her and her party leaders. At the moment the Chinese do not want instability in South Asia and would have advised Khaleda to mend relations with India. China had in the past months also advised Pakistan to improve relations with India. For Beijing, Indian influence is preferable to American influence.

After a whole history of anti-Indianism, a sudden showering of goodwill from the BNP is difficult to digest. For India it will be good if the BNP adopts a normal relationship with India. If not, the status quo will remain and Bangladesh’s economic development will be hurt. It will be for the voters of Bangladesh to judge that at the next elections just over a year ahead.

Source: http://www.eurasiareview.com/06112012-bangladesh-begums-india-visit-real-or-ephimeral-analysis/

   

Prohibitory orders along Indo-Bangladesh border in Assam

Prohibitory orders have been promulgated along Assam-Bangladesh international border in Cachar district in view of reports about extremist elements entering the district for creating law and order problem.

South Assam's Cachar district magistrate H K Dev Mahanta promulgated the orders following reports about extremist elements likely to cross the border and enter Cachar from Bangladesh, official sources said.

There is also apprehension of the possibility of illegal export of commodities and cattle from the district to Bangladesh, besides efforts by illegal immigrants to cross over from across the border to cause disturbance and social tension.

The prohibitory orders have been enforced as a preventive measure.

The district magistrate has directed that no person shall move within one km radius of the Indo-Bangladesh border between 8 pm and 5 am.

The order also prohibits movement of people on river Surma and on its high banks within the limit of the territory in actual control of India in the district of Cachar from dusk to dawn.

Plying of boats in the river Surma without license from the village panchayat duly countersigned by the chief executive officer of Zila Parishad was also prohibited.

The circle officer of Katigorah circle may allow the authorised local lessees permission for fishing with the copy of such an order endorsed by the district magistrate of Cachar and the commandant of 63 Bn BSF Dholcherra.

The order also prohibits carrying of sugar, rice, wheat, edible oil, kerosene oil and salt by any sort of vehicle, cart, rickshaw or any other means between dusk to dawn within 5 km belt inside the district boundary of Cachar along Bangladesh border unless permit is issued by the circle officer.

Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-03/guwahati/34892978_1_prohibitory-orders-indo-bangladesh-border-km-belt

New Delhi courts an ‘enemy’ like a friend

Begum Khaleda Zia was accorded a warm reception during her recent visit to India. But the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh has always been anti-India. There’s nothing to suggest that she has changed

By the the time this column appears, Begum Khaleda Zia, leader of the Opposition in Bangladesh and a former Prime Minister of that country, would be close to the end of her week-long visit. She should be pleased with the outcome. She has had a half-an-hour-long meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh where, what might be called in ‘diplomatese’ as “matters of mutual interest”, were discussed. Mr Singh reportedly assured her that India will take Bangladesh along the path of economic growth it pursued and will not undermine Dhaka’s interests.

Things seem to have gone pleasantly. While Begum Zia sought greater transparency in India’s construction of dams on rivers common to both countries, Mr Singh assured her that his Government was trying to achieve political consensus on the Teesta waters treaty blocked by West Bengal’s Chief Minister, Ms Mamata Banerjee, and on the exchange of border enclaves. Begum Zia was reportedly appreciative of the steps taken by India to liberalise trade with Bangladesh, increasing garment imports from the latter, providing it with power and strengthening its economic infrastructure. She is said to have been positive and forthcoming on terrorism and the activities of cross-border insurgent groups which are important to New Delhi.

The question is: What does India want from the visit? The basic objective apparently is to ensure that the good relations it enjoys with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s Government continues with the successor regime — whoever heads it — after the general election due in the country latest by early 2014. An invitation to Lt-Gen HM Ershad, a former President of Bangladesh and head of the Bangladesh Jatiya Party, who visited India recently, is said to have been a part of the same exercise.

The approach, eminently sensible on paper, will recoil. Like her late husband President Ziaur Rahman, Begum Zia is intensely anti-Indian and instinctively pro-Pakistan. In November 1977, President Rahman converted the Directorate of Forces Intelligence, set up in 1972, into the Directorate-General of Forces Intelligence. An organisational clone of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate and linked almost umbilically to it, the DGFI was established shortly after a visit to Dhaka by the then ISI chief, Lt-Gen Ghulam Jillani Khan. Many of its officers have been trained at the ISI’s training centre at Islamabad.

Moloy Krishna Dhar,  a former joint director of the Intelligence Bureau, points out in Fulcrum of Evil: ISI-CIA-Al Qaeda Nexus, that the ISI and the DFI began collaborating from 1976 in “imparting training and supplying arms” to the militant groups of north-eastern India. The process, which ran into difficulties after Sheikh Hasina became Prime Minister for the first time in 1996, picked up sharply after Begum Zia began her second innings in 2001. Dhar’s book, published in 2006, states that the number of camps of North-Eastern rebels in Bangladesh “have increased by about 40 in the last few months touching the figure of 180-200.”

Begum Zia’s own deeply anti-India approach was intensified by that of her coalition partner, Jama’at-e-Islami Bangladesh, which, in its policy on national defence, identified India as Bangladesh’s only enemy and called for the inculcation of the spirit of jihad in the country’s military against India’s Armed Forces. Given the close links which the Jama’at has with Pakistan and fundamentalist Islamist organisations like the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami Bangladesh, Jama’at-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh and Hizbut Tawhid, it is hardly surprising that Bangladesh became a hub of ISI's anti-India terror operations during 2001-2006.

The Jama’at called the shots in Begum Zia’s Government and savagely persecuted the minorities. Ahmadiyyas were targeted relentlessly. Hindus came under vicious attack even before Begum Zia returned to power following the general election on October 1, 2001. Terrorised by murders, rapes, looting of property, burning of houses, and large-scale assaults, over 15,000 Hindus fled to the border areas of West Bengal. About 100,000 more were reportedly trying to follow suit but were being hindered by the police and the paramilitary personnel.

The Government of Bangladesh, of course, sought to play down the scale of the atrocities. In a statement in the country’s Jatiya Sangsad (National Parliament), Home Minister Altaf Hussain Choudhury, put the number of those killed and raped over a period of 25 days at 266 and 213 respectively. While these figures are high enough, the actual incidence of the crimes appears to have been much higher. According to a report in the widely-circulated Bangla daily Janakantha (The Voice of the People), the atrocities on Hindus exceeded in places even those that were inflicted on them during the 1971 liberation war.

In a piece in the same daily of October 16, one of Bangladesh’s greatest poets ever, Samsur Rahman, wrote, “It is a matter of regret that atrocities by terrorists on the minorities have been continuously increasing in many parts of Bangladesh, particularly in the muffosils, over several days. There have been repeated attacks; the homes of the minorities have become deserted. Women have been victims of rape. To save their lives and honour, many have been compelled to leave their homes and hearths with heavy hearts and embrace endless agonies with tear-laden eyes in the hope of finding refuge in India.” (Translated from Bengali by this writer.)

Besides Begum Zia’s background and record in office, there is the experience of 2001, when her son Tareq Zia was brought to India, taken around, introduced to industrialists and generally given the red-carpet treatment. The sustained contempt and hostility with which she treated India after her return to power, is public knowledge. There is no indication that it will be any different if she again becomes Prime Minister. Meanwhile, nothing prevents Begum Zia from projecting her visit as an indication of India’s recognition of the inevitability of her return to power and an indication of its endorsement of the prospect. Recall the subtle manner in which she portrayed the outcome of her recent visit to China, announcing several promises made by Beijing in a manner which suggested that it was negotiating with a

Prime Minister elect.

This may well persuade a section of undecided voters to swing to her support for the rewards that await those on the winning side. Sheikh Hasina can hardly be blamed if she is not amused. And India will only have itself to blame if it loses a genuine friend. And what happens if she and the Awami League retain power, something which can by no means be ruled out?

Source: http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/52765-new-delhi-courts-an-%E2%80%98enemy%E2%80%99-like-a-friend.html

Illegal immigration from Bangladesh has turned Assam explosive

The vote-bank politics practiced by India’s politicians has transformed Assam into a simmering cauldron of communal violence between the indigenous Assamese Bodos and the Bangladeshi Muslims who have immigrated illegally. The violence in Assam has exposed the fault lines, and is capable of exposing and worsening the communal divide in the State. The volatile situation was summed up by Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi as “living on a volcano”.

A brief history of the conflict

Assam shares an international border with Bangladesh and has been plagued with the problem of illegal immigration by Bangladeshi Muslims for the past four decades. The Governor of Assam, in a secret communique to the Central Government in 2005, revealed that “upto 6000 Bangladeshis enter Assam every day.” According to conservative estimates, India is host to around ten million illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Assam itself is inhabited by around five million illegal immigrants.

Successive Governments in New Delhi have tried to brush aside the problem for the fear of offending and alienating minority interests and alienating the valuable votebank, much to the chagrin of the BJP and its partners like the AGP. Delhi has always adopted a myopic view of the problem, and Assam seems to be paying for Delhi’s mistakes.

In 1947, Pakistan was divided into a Bengali-speaking East Pakistan and an Urdu-speaking West Pakistan by the geographical presence of India. In 1971, it became clear that religion could not bind the two disparate entities into a single nation. The revolt against the linguistic hegemony of West Pakistanis resulted in genocide of the East Pakistanis.

Unable to withstand the brutality of the Pakistani army, millions of Bangladeshis crossed over into the safer climes of India. Indian States like Assam and West Bengal bore the brunt of this influx. Although India provided sanctuary to these refugees, it nonetheless referred to this influx as “bloodless aggression” which could irretrievably impair the “economic and political well being” of the country.

India’s military intervention against the Pakistani army’s genocide of the East Pakistanis led to the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.

However, despite the creation of Bangladesh, India did not get any respite from the influx of Bangladeshi Muslims. The magnitude of this influx can only be assessed from the fact that the period between 1971 and 1991 witnessed the growth of Muslim population in Assam by 77.42 per cent as compared to a Hindu growth of 41.89 per cent. The population explosion has subsequently stabilised but even then, the decadal growth of 1991-2001 at 29.3 per cent for Muslims remained abnormally high as compared to a Hindu growth at 14.9 per cent.

Dhubri, which shares a long riverine border with Bangladesh, is an example of how illegal infiltration into the State continues unabated. As per provisional census details for the period 2001-2011, the decadal population growth for Dhubri at 24.4 per cent was distinctly higher when compared to the population growth of Assam at 16.9 percent for the same period. With the Brahmaputra River providing convenient entry points, the district is being virtually overrun by Bangladeshi infiltrators. Incidentally, Dhubri was one of the flash points during the violence in the State.

Ostrich head in sand approach

The Indian polity, with its penchant for encouraging illegal immigration for the sake of vote-bank politics, prefers the ‘ostrich head in sand’ approach to this issue. This has grievous national implications.

Porous and inadequately defended international borders, coupled with a lack of political will to counter the menace of illegal immigration, have ensured a massive and uncontrolled demographic upheaval in the State. Taking advantage of this demographic shift, illegal immigrants have staked their claims to the resources of the State. This, in turn, has raised the hackles of indigenous populations of the State — now poised to become a minority in their own homeland. While the latter are obviously disgruntled, neither side is in a mood to back down.

Lack of political will to confront illegal immigration manifested itself in the blatantly perverted Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act of 1983. The Act was introduced specifically for Assam, replacing the Foreigners Act of 1946 which remains in effect for the rest of India.

The provisions of the IMDT Act ranged from the bizarre (the State can only act against the illegal immigrants on the basis of a complaint and not suo motu); to the tragic (the onus of establishing the foreign origin of the accused lies on the complainant and not the accused).

Such  provisions made it virtually impossible to deport any illegal immigrant from Assam. It did not come as a surprise to many when only 1,481 illegal immigrants had been expelled upto April 30, 2000 based on over three hundred thousand enguiries.

The Supreme Court of India struck down the IMDT Act in 2005 as ultra vires to the Constitution of India. The Court referred to the Act as the “main impediment or barrier in the identification and deportation of illegal mmigrants.” The Court also compared illegal immigration with “external aggression,” which had made the life of the people of Assam “wholly insecure and the panic generated thereby had created fear psychosis.”

In a revealing observation, the Supreme Court called upon the Government of India to protect “Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance.” Ironically, it was this very “bloodless aggression” which India had used as a pretext to go to war with Pakistan in 1971.

The Congress which has been the dominant political force, both at the Central level and in Assam post independence, has often been accused of tacitly encouraging this infiltration for political gains. So far, Gogoi and his friends seem to be in no hurry to dispel this accusation.

Illegal migrants are mobilised to vote en masse for Congress candidates as quid pro quo to unhindered access to every national resource. In catering to myopic political returns, the party and the Government have turned a blind eye to the destabilising impact of the socio-economic volatility arising out of this influx. In a statement which is telling  of the party’s abetment of illegal migration, Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi was quick to rescind his initial statement of Assam “living on a volcano,” with a “There are no Bangladeshis in the clash but Indian citizens.”

Evidently, the vote-bank cannot be disturbed and therefore national interests are being sacrificed at the altar of political expediency. It is disturbing to know that the political class (by their actions) believe that the two are mutually exclusive.

Encouraged by the pusillanimous approach of the Governments, fundamentalists have started manipulating illegal migrants for their own gains. Fundamentalist Muslim leaders in Assam have already issued calls for ‘jihad’ if the indigenous Bodos involved in retaliation during the violence were not arrested.

Even attempts by the Government of India to prepare a National Register of Citizens based on the 1971 rolls in the State for an authentic documentation of the population have failed to make any headway in the face of strong opposition from these Muslim groups.

Fundamentalist groups are apprehensive about political power slipping away from their hands, once the process of identification of the illegal migrants is initiated in earnest. That the effort to prepare the NRC is abandoned at the slightest resistance, exemplifies the connivance of the politicians with this illicit immigration.

What the future may hold

Political shortsightedness has resulted in a situation where most Indian cities are getting burdened with these illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. The immigrants who have started shifting to greener urban pastures, which offer greater economic opportunities. However, it is in Assam that the conflict between the Indians and illegal Bangladeshi Muslims is growing. Emotions have been running high ever since the migrants started obtaining squatters rights on the lands which they were initially employed to till.

With the demography being dramatically altered by their steady influx, illegal immigrants have started wielding enormous political power in Assam. Muslims have become the majority in 11 out 27 districts in the State and the dominant factor in determining electoral fortunes in 54 out of 126 constituencies in the local Assembly. A stage has been reached where no party can expect to attain political dominance without support from the Bangladeshi Muslims.

It is this conversion of the illegal migrants into a political force, that has made the indigenous population apprehensive of losing its identity and culture.

This unfettered illegal migration has ominous implications for national security and socio-economic stability. Intelligence inputs indicate that the Inter Service Intelligence Agency (ISI) of Pakistan is utilising these migrants as conduits to ferry in terrorists and arms into India. Counterfeit Indian currency with its origins in Bangladesh has flooded border areas, crippling the economy in these parts.

It is often said that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Kashmir is a case in point. Gogoi and his friends should brush up on their history.

Source: http://www.niticentral.com/2012/10/illegal-immigration-from-bangladesh-has-turned-assam-explosive.html

The way of all flesh

There is nothing fine about dining on animals slaughtered to meet human desire. Indeed, it is a barbaric act

Over the past six months, volunteers of Gau Gyan Foundation, People for Animals and Rashtriya Gau Raksha Sena have been working together to apprehend cattle  traffickers and reporting the matter to the police. Some are journalists, some animal rights activists, and some grass-roots workers, keeping track of cattle movements across States. Despite the widespread ban on animal cruelty and cattle slaughter, thousands of livestock are trafficked every week in places such as Goa, Porbandar, Diu and Daman for butchering; and smuggled from the northern cow belt, Odisha, elsewhere, to Bangladesh via West Bengal. Kerala and West Bengal, in the grip of appeasement politics, patented by the Congress, its splinter Trinamool Congress, and Communists, anyway allow cattle slaughter, as do some Christian pockets in the North-East. But the open collusion between law-keepers and traffickers is a blatant offence.

Reports of trafficking are generally ignored by the police. And, even if they do file FIRs under pressure, lax court proceedings let the traders and cattle free. Yet, such offences are punishable under numerous laws: Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Delhi Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 1994; Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act; Transport of Animal Rules, 1978; Sec 5/7, Sec 295(A) Indian Penal Code and the like. The culprits get away by pleading that the cattle are being transported for farming purposes. Activists, who have been investigating such incidents, are certain that greasing palms eases their passage. It is a well-entrenched network of traders, intermediaries and official facilitators.

This gives a new meaning to the state functioning as a facilitator. When cheerleaders for free-market reforms eulogise the delights of fine dining, they overlook one simple fact: There is nothing fine about feasting on the flesh of living creatures. It is, rather, the nadir of human development. And when the same people choose to turn their attention to their other obsession, Mahatma Gandhi, the irony is accentuated. Indeed, the Congress's continued association with Gandhiji, his name being invoked to vest the party and its leaders with credibility, is absurd because it has completely repudiated whatever the Mahatma espoused: Promotion of a home-grown economy; the culture of non-violence; and ban on cattle slaughter.

The Congress-led UPA coalition's track record is utterly dismal in this regard, with domestic industries being forced to give way to giant transnational players; cottage industry reduced to a quaint ethnic enterprise; the politics of minorityism thwarting communal relations on an even keel; and cattle smuggling for the purpose of slaughter and beef exports magnifying alarmingly. Congress allies in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal, with the Trinamool Congress only recently having severed ties as a populist stunt, are equally unworthy of invoking Gandhiji's legacy. For, despite their socialist pretensions, their support made it possible for the Congress to follow the economic course that threatens to reverse whatever India can claim as its own. Acknowledging that cattle was integral to rural wealth, Gandhian Acharya Vinobha Bhave launched a ceaseless satyagraha near Deonar, Mumbai, where thousands of cattle smuggled from other parts, are daily butchered, to meet the craving for fine Indian beef, free of the trigger of mad cow disease.

The grim paradox of the nation, and the Congress especially, paying homage to the Mahatma, one of the greatest proponents of ahimsa and cattle protection, on his birth anniversary is underlined by current data on India emerging as the biggest beef exporter in the world. It is the pink revolution that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has been highlighting as one of the worst lapses of the Congress-led UPA regime. To achieve this dubious distinction, the Government gives subsidies for exports and has modernised slaughter houses. This is reprehensible, considering that the reforms initiative is pegged to cutting fuel and other subsidies, which hits the poor hardest. United States Department of Agriculture's Foreign Agricultural Service forecast for 2012 avers that we will export about 1.5 million metric tonnes of beef, overtaking Australia. Worse, the export quantum has doubled in just three years.

And where does this beef, sourced reportedly from buffaloes, go? To the Middle East, North Africa and South-East Asia mainly. So even if the ruling coalition has failed to feed India's poor, several hundred millions of people can seek solace in the fact that our livestock is being depleted rapidly so that there is no dearth of cheep meat in other countries. Little matter that these animals could have been better deployed for farming and production of milk. Or that such slaughter is antithetical to the ethos of compassion, integral to our heritage. The UPA's brutalising influence and policies are the logical corollary of its rootlessness.

Business lobbies have been trying since a decade to coerce the Army into replacing canvas PT shoes with shoes or combat boots, made of cow leather. This will entail the The slaughter of millions of cattle. Devout jawans, most from villages, may then rise up, triggering another rebellion against alien rule.

Source: http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/52582-the-way-of-all-flesh.html

Hindu Fearlessness through the Ages

One hears it all too often: ‘Hindus are cowards, they only deserve what they are suffering.’Mahatma Gandhi said it clearly enough: ‘The Muslim is a bully, the Hindu a coward.’ But Hindus are by no means cowards. Hindus as such have their problems, but lack of bravery is not one of them.

Look at the Bangladesh war of 1971. The Pakistani Army was brave enough as long as its job consisted in raping Bengali women, but as soon as the Indian Army appeared on the  scene, all they could do was to flee and to surrender. The Majority Hindu Army liberated the oppressed Muslims and the persecuted Hindus of Bangladesh. Or look at the Kargil war of 1999.

Though the  politicians forbade the Indian soldiers from taking the war into enemy territory by crossing the Pak  border, the Indian Army besieged the Kargil mountain which the Pak invaders had taken, and  reconquered it.

Let us look at the historical record. First off, the Vedas and the Hindu epics, like most ancient writings, extolled bravery.

The Bhagavad-Gita also underpins its plea for bravery on the battlefield with a typically Hindu (at least very un-Christian and un-Islamic) philosophy, namely the belief in reincarnation.

Cicero and Caesar had noted the Gallic men’s battlefield bravery and its connection to  their belief in reincarnation. This was equally true of the Hindu warriors: they were not afraid of  death.

Then, Hindus stopped Alexander the Great. To be sure, this is old history, we have a paucity of reliable sources about what really happened, and the map shows that.

Alexander’s soldiers were uniquely far from home and understandably unwilling to go farther even if they could.

But fact is: the  great Alexander was satisfied with the Iranian provinces of India’s frontier and declined to enter India  proper.

That was no mean achievement of the Hindus.Then the Shakas, Kushanas and Hunas managed to gain a foothold in India’s Northwest. The Shakas were defeated, the Vikram calendar begins with this victory. These conquering foreigners  were not fully expelled, but at least they were absorbed. There is no distinct Shaka, Kushana or Huna  community today, much less do they demand minority privileges.

The Muslims entered Indian history with a naval attack north of present-day Mumbai in 636, only four years after Mohammed’s death. It was repelled. Then for half a century they sent a number  of expeditions from Mesopotamia to Sindh. Each expedition was defeated.

While conquering North Africa was a cakewalk, there was a Caliph who expressed his reluctance to send another army to Sindh, because those expeditions only cost the lives of so many good Muslims. But of course, if you keep trying, you will break through one day, so eventually, Mohammed bin Qasim occupied Sindh in 712. But even then, his successor was soon defeated.

Meanwhile, the Muslim armies conquered Central Asia and their next attack was through Afghanistan and the Khyber pass. Afghanistan was ruled by the Hindu Shahiya dynasty, which gave them a long-drawn-out fight. But towards the year 1000 the Muslims finally they won through, and the Shahiya king killed himself when he found himself unable to defend his subjects. From Afghanistan, Mahmud Ghaznavi entered India proper for what his court chroniclers described as raids.

In fact, he would have been happy enough to occupy India permanently, but the Hindus were still too strong for that.  But what the Hindus had in bravery, they lacked in alertness. They didn’t realize that Islam was a new type of enemy, much more difficult to digest than the earlier invaders. In the peripheral Kashmir region, the king acted “secular” and gave Muslims positions of power and confidence, which  gave them the opportunity to take steps towards the Islamization of the region. This would be repeated many times, down to the present.

Thus, the kings of the Vijayanagar empire showed off their broad-mindedness (now mistermed “secularism”) by hiring Muslim troops, only to find in the battle of Talikota that their Muslim armies defected to the Muslim opponent camp and inflicted defeat on their erstwhile Hindu overlord.

Meanwhile, Mahmud’s nephew Salar Mahmud Ghaznavi made a successful foray into the Ganga basin. The Hindu kings in the neighbourhood got together to stop him. Led by Sukhadeva and including the famous philosopher-king Raja Bhoja, they defeated Ghaznavi in the battle of Bahraich near Ayodhya in 1033. (It is a different matter that sentimental

Hindu sleepwalkers of later years joined their Muslim neighbours in worshipping at Salar Masud Ghaznavi’s grave, not appreciating the bravery and foresight of the Hindu kings and soldiers who defeated him; there are certain things very wrong with the Hindu mentality, but again, lack of bravery is not among them.) For more than a century and a half, the people of the Ganga basin considered Islamic invasion a thing of the past.

But then, the breakthrough came. It was not due to Hindu cowardice, but to Hindu magnanimity and overconfidence. A year after being defeated by Prithviraj Chauhan, who spared him, Mohammed Ghori did battle again and took his erstwhile victor captive. After blinding and executing Prithviraj, he and his generals conquered the entire Ganga plain, using newer battlefield strategies.

From there, they would extend their power southwards to cover almost the whole  subcontinent in due course. But for five centuries and a half, the Hindus had prevented this, while West Asia, North Africa and Spain had fallen within eighty years.

The age of Muslim expansion was again marked by endless Hindu resistance. Wise Muslim rulers opted for a compromise with this unbeatable foe (misinterpreted by secularists as “secularism”), but more zealous rulers depleted their forces in endless wars.

The age of Muslim expansion was again marked by endless Hindu resistance. Wise Muslim rulers opted for a compromise with this unbeatable foe (misinterpreted by secularists as “secularism”), but more zealous rulers depleted their forces in endless wars.

In this endeavour, they were helped by a stream of West-Asian adventurers and African slave-soldiers who came to India to increase the Delhi Sultanate’s large standing armies. The Muslim states were totally geared to warfare, something unseen in Hindu history. For this reason, we can say with the comfort of hindsight that the Muslims could finally have conquered all of the subcontinent had they remained united.

Even Hindu bravery could not have prevented it, any more than the brief acts of North-African bravery could stop the Islamization of North Africa.

But fortunately, Muslim states or Muslim ethnic lobbies within a state also fought each other, which gave Hindus a chance to regroup and to mount another attack.

Also, some Hindu kings did what they thought best under the circumstances, viz. they surrendered without war, paid tribute, and retained sufficient autonomy to house rebels from other areas or become rebellious themselves once circumstances allowed this.

It was important for a come-back to have these free territories (just like the reconquista of Spain was only possible because its Asturian region had managed to remain free since the beginning). Their collaboration was not cowardice but a ruse to gain time.All the same, this meant that Hindus enlisted in the armed force of sagacious Muslim rulers.

Akbar, who had consolidated his power by defeating the Hindu ruler Himu, was smart enough to keep enough of the Hindus on his side to overpower rival Muslim claimants and to fight Hindu  freedom fighters.

Famously, the rebellious Rana Pratap was countered by Man Singh, who wielded the sword of the Moghul empire. Hindu bravery was employed by Muslim rulers.

Finally, in the 17th century, a rebellious Shivaji, born in a family of collaborators, would arise and restore Hindu sovereignty. Where his Maratha army appeared, defeat of their enemies was a certainty. The Moghul empire became a mere shadow of its former self, while the military power rested with the Marathas.

In 1817, the Peshwas, who had taken over the Maratha confederacy, were terminally defeated by the British. But again this was not for Hindus’ lack of bravery.

They fought like lions, and on the other side, other Hindu divisions fought like lions for the British, who could conquer and rule India without doing too much fighting themselves.

If something can be held against the Marathas and their Peshwa successors, it is not a lack of bravery or military prowess, but lack of proper ideological motivation.

This is why they spilled their energies in predatory raids against other Hindu populations, it is why their leader prostrated before the powerless Moghul emperor in 1771, it is why some Peshwa descendents could be enticed into a Hindu-Muslim or Moghul-Maratha cooperation (which was really a case of mutual deception) in the Mutiny of 1857.They lapsed from Shivaji’s sense of mission as the liberator of the Hindus.

One constant for at least 8 centuries was that Hindus didn’t use their brains to update their

warfare. They didn’t learn from their enemies’ successes. Also, they were sentimental and too overly attached to the person of their leader.

They could bravely fight all they wanted, but if the leader was killed, there was no second person, much less a collective plan, to take his place. When you look at today’s Hindu politicians and internet warriors, you find exactly the same defects.

In a hostile sense too, Hindus are too focused on persons. They have wasted their energies attacking Sonia Gandhi and her family, and failed to dismantle the secularist dispensation established by her grandfather-in-law, Jawaharlal Nehru, and given a Marxist slant by her mother-in-law, Indira Gandhi.

They haven’t emulated the techniques by which the secularists, like the British of yore, exercise power totally out of proportion to their numbers. They haven’t figured out how to stop the phenomenon of “Hindus wielding the sword of Islam”, in which Akbar exulted, but which has become so commonplace under the guise of secularism. For that, an analysis of all the factors in the field is necessary.

This is not too difficult, it only takes a normal degree of involvement and will. But so far, Hindus have not mustered the will to win.

Source: http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/hindu-fearlessness-through-the-ages/