Monday, 19 October 2015

128-Partition
एक दुखी परिवार-128
Kashmir-stays none of contention
For both India and Pakistan, the most singular conflict unresolved since partition has concerned the former Princely State of Kashmir, whose fate was left undetermined at the time the British left. 
Lying as it did on the border, Kashmir was claimed by both countries, which have been to war over this region on numerous occasions.
The conflict has wasted thousands of lives and millions of dollars, but is closer to no solution , thank our leaders who got India this cancer in their haste to climb throne of independent India which the British , it is understood, were too willing to serve on a silver platter but not without bargaining such a devastating issue to engage India and Pakistan in an unending ordeal called Kashmir.


(Cont.    )

Saturday, 17 October 2015

127- Reasons for partition-7
एक दुखी परिवार-127
Last months of British rule
Post-partition and conflict over Kashmir.

The death of Muhammed Ali Jinnah in 1948, the conflict with India over the Princely State of Kashmir (which both countries claimed at independence), as well as ethnic and religious differences within Pakistan itself, all combined to stymie (a situation or problem presenting such difficulties as to discourage or defeat any attempt to deal with or resolve it) early attempts to agree on a constitution and an effectively functioning civil administration.
This failure paved the way for a military takeover of the government in 1958 and later on, a civil war.
1971 saw the division of the Pakistan and the creation of the separate state of Bangladesh. Ever since then, military rule had been more often than not the order of the day in both countries.
India has maintained remarkable cohesion since independence, especially considering it is nearly the size of Europe.
At independence, in India and in Pakistan, civil unrest as well as ethnic and religious discord threatened the stability of the new country. However, the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi on 30 January 1948 by a Hindu fanatic strengthened the hand of secularists , so called, within the government.
Indian politicians ratified a constitution, which led to the first democratic elections in 1951. This made India the world's largest democracy and consolidated governmental authority over the entire subcontinent.
However, major tensions have persisted among both Muslim and Sikh communities, which suffered most from the violence and land loss resulting from partition. These tensions erupted most seriously in the 1980s in a violent campaign for the creation of a separate Sikh state which led ultimately to the assassination of Indira Gandhi.
Renewed victimisation of Muslims has also occurred, notably with the destruction of the Muslim shrine at Ayodhya in 1992 and anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2004. With such notable exceptions, however, India has maintained a remarkable level of cohesion since independence, especially if one considers that it is a country nearly the size of Europe.

(Cont.   .)

Friday, 16 October 2015

126-Reasons for partition-6
एक दुखी परिवार-126
Last months of British rule
Hopes for Pakistan
Strong support for the idea of an independent Pakistan came from large Muslim landowning families in the Punjab and Sindh, who saw it as an opportunity to prosper within a captive market free from competition.
Support also came from the poor peasantry of East Bengal, who saw it as an opportunity to escape from the clutches of moneylenders - often Hindu. Both were to be disappointed. Independent Pakistan inherited India's longest and strategically most problematic borders.
The heartland of support for the Muslim League lay in Uttar Pradesh, which was not included within Pakistan.
At the same time, 90% of the subcontinent's industry, and taxable income base remained in India, including the largest cities of Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta. The economy of Pakistan was chiefly agricultural, and controlled by feudal elites.
Furthermore, at the division of India, Pakistan won a poor share of the colonial government's financial reserves - with 23% of the undivided land mass, it inherited only 17.5% of the former government's financial assets. Once the army had been paid, nothing was left over for the purposes of economic development.
(Cont.   .)

Thursday, 15 October 2015

125-Reasons for partition-5
एक दुखी परिवार-125
Last months of British rule

The last months of British rule were marked by a naval mutiny, wage strikes and successful demonstrations in every major city.

Elsewhere, the last months of British rule were marked by a naval mutiny, wage strikes and successful demonstrations in every major city. In all of these conflicts the British colonial government remained aloof, as it concentrated on the business of negotiating a speedy transfer of power.

(Cont.    .)

Tuesday, 13 October 2015

124-Reasons for partition-4
एक दुखी परिवार-124
Tensions in India
Many have wondered why the British and Indian leaders did not delay until a better deal over borders could have been agreed. One explanation is that in the months and years immediately following World War Two, leaders on all sides were losing control and were keen to strike a deal before the country descended into chaos.
Immediately before World War Two, India was ravaged by the impact of the Great Depression, bringing mass unemployment. This created tremendous tensions exacerbated during the war by inflation and food grain shortages. Rationing was introduced in Indian cities and in Bengal a major famine developed in 1942.
The resulting discontent was expressed in widespread violence accompanying the Congress party's 'Quit India' campaign of 1942 - a violence only contained by the deployment of 55 army battalions.
With the cessation of hostilities, the battalions at the disposal of the government in India were rapidly diminished. At the same time, the infrastructure of the Congress Party, whose entire leadership was imprisoned due to their opposition to the war, had been dismantled.
The Muslim League, which co-operated with the British, had rapidly increased its membership, yet still had very limited grassroots level organisation.
This was dramatically revealed on the 16 August 1946, when Jinnah called for a 'Direct Action Day' by followers of the League in support of the demand for Pakistan. The day had dissolved into random violence and civil disruption across north India, with thousands of lives lost.
This was interpreted by the British as evidence of the irreconcilable differences between Hindus and Muslims. In reality, the riots were evidence as much of a simple lack of military and political control as they were of social discord.
Further evidence of the collapse of government authority was to be seen in the Princely State of Hyderabad, where a major uprising occurred in the Telengana region, and with the Tebhaga ('two-thirds') agitation among share-cropping cultivators in north Bengal. A leading role was played in both by the Communist Party of India.
(Cont.     .)

Monday, 12 October 2015

Your Oxygen Level
When your lungs are healthy and working well, you breathe in air and your body gets the oxygen it needs to keep everything working. Your blood cells are able to pick up the oxygen and carry enough to handle your body's needs. This is your oxygen level.
With injury or illness to your lungs, you may not be able to get enough oxygen into your body by breathing the air around you. This can happen with lung diseases like emphysema or asthma, or with other diseases like heart failure. Extra oxygen, called oxygen therapy, may be needed to keep your oxygen at the right level. This extra oxygen may be needed while you exercise or get more active. For some, extra oxygen may be needed during sleep. As the lung disease or other condition affecting your lungs gets worse, oxygen therapy may be needed all of the time to keep your oxygen level in a good range.
How are oxygen levels measured?
Arterial Blood Gases (ABGs) – a sample of your blood is collected in a syringe using a needle that is put into the artery. Your oxygen level, the level of carbon dioxide and the acidity of your blood are checked with this test.
What happens if my oxygen level is too low?
Because all of your body's cells need oxygen to work and live, low oxygen can affect almost every part of your body. Low oxygen is very hard on cells of your heart and brain, and other body cells that are always working and not able to repair themselves. Also, when your oxygen level is low, the right side of your heart has to work much harder to pump blood through your lungs.
How will I feel if my oxygen is too low?
You may not feel any different. That is why you may need a pulse oximeter reading or ABGs to know your level. Some symptoms you may notice include:
• Feeling very tired
• Being short of breath
• Having trouble thinking or concentrating
• Feeling drowsy
• Being irritable
• Having a blue or gray tint to your skin, nails or lips
If you have these symptoms, let your doctor know. You may need to use oxygen therapy or change the amount of oxygen you are using.

123- Reasons for partition-3
एक दुखी परिवार-123
Transfer of power
A group migrates to its new homeland after the partition of India in 1947  ©An act of parliament proposed a date for the transfer of power into Indian hands in June 1948, summarily advanced to August 1947 at the whim of the last viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten. Nehru was his what? An ally? A friend? A colluding indian participant? A pick of the bunch of India's father of the nation-in waiting? Clubbed together, projected as attorney holders for the people of India though people never gave them any open mandate.
This preponement, better say collusive preponement , in Indian leaders' haste to climb the throne which the British were more eager to quit rather than freedom fighters eager to have them vacated , left a great many issues and interests unresolved at the end of colonial rule.
In charge of negotiations, the viceroy exacerbated difficulties by focusing largely on Jinnah's Muslim League and the Indian National Congress (led by Jawaharlal Nehru).
The two parties' representative status was established by Constituent Assembly elections in July 1946, but fell well short of a universal franchise.
Tellingly, although Pakistan celebrated its independence on 14 August and India on 15 August 1947, the border between the two new states was not announced until 17 August.
It was hurriedly drawn up by a British lawyer, Cyril Radcliffe, who had little knowledge of Indian conditions and with the use of out-of-date maps and census materials.
Communities, families and farms were cut in two, but by delaying the announcement the British managed to avoid responsibility for the worst fighting and the mass migration that had followed.
(Cont.   .)

Saturday, 10 October 2015


122-Partition of India
एक दुखी परिवार-122
Reasons for partition-2
If Pakistan were indeed created as a homeland for Muslims, it is hard to understand why far more were left behind in India than were incorporated into the new state of Pakistan - a state created in two halves, one in the east (formerly East Bengal, now Bangladesh) and the other 1,700 kilometres away on the western side of the subcontinent .
It is possible that Mohammed Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League, simply wished to use the demand for a separate state as a bargaining chip to win greater power for Muslims within a loosely federated India. Certainly, the idea of 'Pakistan' was not thought of until the late 1930s.
One explanation for the chaotic manner in which the two independent nations came into being is the hurried nature of the British withdrawal. This was announced soon after the victory of the Labour Party in the British general election of July 1945, amid the realisation that the British state, devastated by war, could not afford to hold on to its over-extended empire.
(Cont.   .)

Friday, 9 October 2015

121-Partition of India
एक दुखी परिवार-121
Reasons for partition
India and Pakistan won independence in August 1947, following a nationalist struggle lasting nearly three decades. 
It set a vital precedent for the negotiated winding up of European empires elsewhere. Unfortunately, it was accompanied by the largest mass migration in human history of some 10 million. 
As many as one million civilians died in the accompanying riots and local-level fighting, particularly in the western region of Punjab which was cut in two by the border.
The agreement to divide colonial India into two separate states - one with a Muslim majority (Pakistan) and the other with a Hindu majority (India) is commonly seen as the outcome of conflict between the nations' elites.
 This explanation, however, renders the mass violence that accompanied partition , difficult to explain.
One explanation for the chaos in which the two nations came into being, is Britain's hurried withdrawal with the realisation , it could ill afford its over-extended empire.
(Cont.    .)
120-Kashmir- Nehru's unforgettable gift
एक दुखी परिवार-120
Article 370, what is?
Article 370 of the Constitution of India
Temporary Provisions with respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir
1. Notwithstanding anything in this constitution:
(a) The provisions of Article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
(b) The power of Parliament to make laws for the said state shall be limited to
(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State and 
(ii) Such other matters in the Said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Govt of the State, the President may, by order specify.
1. Explanation. For the purposes of this Article, the Govt of the State means the person for the time being recognized by the President as Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir acting on the advice of the council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja’s Proclamation dated the fifty day of March 1948.
(c) The provisions of Article (1) and of this Article shall apply in relation to this State;
(d) Such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State Subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify;

Provided that no such order which related to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub clause (1) shall be issued except in consultation with the govt of the State. 
Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last proceeding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of the Govt of the State. 
(2) If the concurrence of the Govt of the State referred to in para (ii) of Sub Clause (b) of Clause (1) be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is concerned. It shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon. 
(3) Notwithstanding the anything in the foregoing provisions of the article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this Article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may notify. 
Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in Clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification. 
(Cont.  .)





Thursday, 8 October 2015

119-Kashmir, ordeal that Nehru 
gave India to suffer incorrigibly.
एक दुखी परिवार-119
Art 370- the biggest impediment 
Consequences of Article 370
Article 370 has been the biggest impediment to integration of J&K State into Indian Union. That it was incorporated in the Indian Constitution by the machination of two individuals – Shiekh Abdullah and Nehru is all the more regrettable. Nehru had to eat the humble pie when he had to arrest the Sheikh for his divisive and anti national stance on 8 Aug 1953 but he did not let go of his concept of keeping J&K a separate entity. In 1957, some top leaders of National Conference led by Mr Qasim split the party and formed a group called Democratic National Conference (DNC). 
It had abrogation of Article 370 on its agenda. Nehru would not brook any opposition to his policy of keeping J&K a separate entity. He told the leaders that a new threat (China) is emerging and it is an inopportune time to raise this issue and forced them to drop their demand. Nehru thereafter decided to withdraw the Kashmir conspiracy case against Sheikh Abdullah. This case had been going on since May 21, 1958. The formal orders however were issued by Govt of India on 8 April 1964. 
It is often forgotten that J&K state is not a homogeneous entity. Apart from Valley Muslims, Jammu has a predominantly Hindu population while Ladakh has a mix of Buddhist and Muslims. Then you have the Gujjars & Bakarwals. Why is Article 370 detrimental to the full integration of J&K state into Indian Union. Firstly the Central Govt can make laws only with concurrence of the State govt, practically giving it the Veto power. Article 352 and 360 for declaration of national and financial emergency respectively cannot be applied in Kashmir. While a citizen of India has only Indian citizenship, J&K citizens have two citizenships. Anti Defection Law is not applicable to J&K. No outsider can buy property in J&K state. 
The beneficial laws such as Wealth Tax, Gift Tax & Urban Land Ceiling Act and intermarriage with other Indian nationals do not operate in J&K State. Even Article 356 under which President of India can impose his rule in any state cannot be enforced in J&K without consent of the Governor who himself is an appointee of the President. State of J&K can refuse building of any cantonment on any site or refuse to allot land for defence purposes. 
Article 370, included in the Constitution on a temporary provision should have been gradually abrogated. This has not happened in sixty years. In fact whenever someone mentions this, vested interests raise an outcry that legitimate rights of Kashmiris are being trampled upon. Stated agenda of National Conference is return to pre 1953 status. Why should a state of Indian Union have a special status? It conveys a wrong signal not only to Kashmiris but also to the separatists, Pakistan and indeed the international community that J&K is still to become integral part of India, the sooner Article 370 is done away is better. 
(Cont.   .)

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

118- Nehru's legacy-India suffers.

एक दुखी परिवार-118
Art. 370
By Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal


The Drama Unfolds
Having finalized the text of Article 370 with Sheikh Abdullah, Nehru brought in Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, IAS, as a minister without portfolio to help him deal with Kashmir portfolio and plead the case of Article 370 in the Constituent Assembly. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar had been prime minister of Kashmir for six years with Maharaja Hari Singh. When Sardar Patel expressed his misgivings, this is what Nehru had to say on Dec 27, 1947. 
“Gopalaswamy Ayyangar has been especially asked to help in Kashmir matters. Both for this reason and because of his intimate knowledge and experience of Kashmir, he had to be given full latitude. I really do not know where the States Ministry (Sardar Patel’s ministry) comes into the picture except that it should be kept informed for the steps taken. All this was done at my instance and I do not propose to abdicate my functions in regard to matters for which I consider myself responsible. May I say that the manner of approach to Gopalaswamy was hardly in keeping with the courtesy due to a colleague.” 
The Sardar thereupon resigned and the matter fell in Gandhiji’s lap to bring the two colleagues together. During this period, V Shankar, IAS was the personal secretary to Patel and had maintained a record of all events. It is clear from these records that Nehru finalized the draft of Article 370 alongwith Sheikh Abdullah without even informing Patel. Thereafter it fell to Gopalaswamy Ayyangar to get the draft passed in the Constituent Assembly discussions. The proposal was torn to pieces by the Constituent Assembly and also Congress Party Executive. 
Nehru, who was abroad at the time, swallowed his pride and rang up Patel and requested him to get the Article 370 approved It speaks volumes of Patel’s loyalty to a colleague that despite his own and others misgivings, he managed to convince the members of Constituent Assembly and Congress Party Executive. But to V Shankar he said “Jawaharlal Royega”. V Shankar, in his record has described the meeting of the Congress Executive Committee “The meeting was one of the stormiest I have ever witnessed barring the party meeting which discussed the proposition relating to Rajaji becoming the first President of Indian Republic. The opinion in opposition to Gopalaswamy’s formula was forcefully and even militantly expressed and the issue even brought in the sovereignty of the Constituent Assembly to draw up the Constitution without being tied down to the apron-strings of the Kashmir State Constituent Assembly. In such a situation even Maulana Azad was shouted down. 
The Party was in uproar. The Sardar had to plead that because of the international complications, a provisional approach alone could be made leaving the question of final relationship to be worked out according to the exigencies of the situation and mutual feelings and confidence that would have been by then created. Once the Sardar had taken charge, all opposition to the draft was silenced” And how Nehru responded to this great act of loyalty on part of Sardar? On 24 July 1952, after Sardar was no more, Nehru made a detailed statement on Kashmir in the Parliament on slow integration of Kashmir into India Union and mentioned that “Sardar Patel was all the time dealing with these matters.” Even Gopalaswami Ayyangar was dismayed at this blatant lie and mentioned to V Shankar “It is an ill return to the Sardar for the magnanimity he had shown in accepting Panditji’s point of view against his better judgment.” 
(Cont.  .)

Tuesday, 6 October 2015

117-Kashmir ordeal- Nehru's legacy
एक दुखी परिवार-117

By Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal
Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah 

Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah Charismatic Kashmiri leader who never let go of his dream of ruling an independent Kashmir even while masquerading as a secularist — architect of Article 370 along with Nehru. He must share with Nehru the grave consequences. Lion of Kashmir brought Nehru under his spell from 1938 onwards to the extent that in May 1947 when he was arrested by the Maharaja for sedition, Nehru represented Sheikh as his lawyer and was even arrested in Jun 1947 by the Maharaja while trying to enter J&K. Finally Nehru had to eat the humble pie by arresting Sheikh Abdullah for sedition on 9 Aug 1953. 
Maharaja Hari Singh The Maharaja saw an opportunity at the end of British Raj to keep Kashmir as the Switzerland of the East. Trying to repeat history when his ancestors – Maharaja Gulab Singh and Ranbir Singh gained handsome dividends by keeping aloof during the Sikh War and Great Mutiny, Hari Singh tried to sign a standstill Agreement with India and Pak at the time of independence, Pakistan signed, India declined. Maharaja died a lonely man, forced to abdicate and exiled from  his beloved land.
(Cont.  .)

Sunday, 4 October 2015


116-Kashmir ordeal that Nehru 
gave India to suffer incorrigibly.

एक दुखी परिवार-116
Handsome Harrow educated aristocrat

By Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal

Dramatis Personal
Jawahar Lal Nehru The handsome Harrow educated aristocrat who gave up a life of luxury to join the freedom movement. Babu’s choose heir and darling of the masses, he had a fatal flaw. He cared for personalities rather than issues and institutions, be it selection of Lord Mountbatten as the first Governor General of free India, retaining a senior British officer as the Commander-in-Chief of India Army or backing Sheikh Abdullah to the hilt – his choices were unfortunate. Finally the Chinese aggression of 1962 shattered his image of a world statesman. 
Sardar Patel The Iron Man of India — silent, strong and pragmatic with a complete hold on congress party organization — rightly credited with creating a unified India by integrating 565 princely states in it — he would have included Kashmir also in it if allowed to do so by Nehru. The only blot on him was the insinuation that he failed to protect his beloved Bapu. The slur only hastened his end in Dec 1950. 
(Cont.    )

Saturday, 3 October 2015

115- Kashmir ordeal that Nehru 
gave India to suffer incorrigibly.

एक दुखी परिवार-115
Nehru kept Kashmir with himself 

By Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal

Article 370 was worked out in late 1947 between Sheikh Abdullah, who had by then been appointed Prime Minister of J&K by the Maharaja and Nehru, who kept the Kashmir portfolio with himself and kept Sardar Patel, the home minister, away from his legitimate function. Hence Nehru is answerable to all acts of commission and omission, consequences of which we are suffering till date as far as J&K is concerned. 
While it was Mountbatten who persuaded Nehru to take the J&K issue to the UN, it was Sheikh Abdullah, who, driven by his ambition to be ruler of an independent Kashmir and his hatred for the Maharaja, persuaded Nehru to give special status to J&K. Among his reasons were – occupation of one third of J&K by Pakistan,reference to the UN and plebiscite. The most sinister aspect of proposed Article 370 was the provision that any changes could be brought about in it only by the concurrence of J&K assembly. Nehru’s promise that Article 370 was a temporary provision and will get eroded over a period of time has turned out to be a chimera. The first thing that Sheikh Abdullah got done was to abolish hereditary monarchy and redesignate him as Sadar-e-Riyasat who was to be elected by the Assembly. The accession of J&K State into Indian Union was approved by J&K Assembly only in 1956. 
(Cont.    .)

114-Kashmir ordeal that Nehru 
gave India to suffer incorrigibly.

एक दुखी परिवार-114

By Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal
It is often not realized that among the causes of Kashmir problem – inclusion of plebiscite in the Instrument of Accession, reference of Kashmir to UN, halting Indian offensive when it was poised to drive out the invaders from Kashmir, Article 370 has played no less a part in preventing J&K from becoming an integral part of the Indian Union. Not many people are aware as how and why this Article was formulated and included in the Indian  Constitution despite grave misgivings of Sardar Patel and indeed a large number of the members of Congress Working Committee and Constituent Assembly.
((Cont.    .)

113-Independence and partition of India
एक दुखी परिवार-113
Patel's sacrifice for Gandhi's cynosure-Nehru
Sardar Patel was close to 71 when all this drama was unfolding, to get him overtaken in the race he had already won, by Nehru who was dearer to Gandhi who had assumed the persuasive powers akin to a king maker.
Patel knew that this was the only chance he could get to lead the country. 
Nehru, then 56 only, still had age with him. Despite all this Patel accepted to take a second position because of two reasons: firstly, for Patel post or position was immaterial. Service to the motherland was more important; 
and secondly, Nehru was keen that “either he would take the number one spot in the Government or stay out.
 Vallabhbhai also reckoned that whereas office was likely to moderate Nehru, rejection would drive him into opposition. Patel shrank from precipitating such an outcome, which would bitterly divide India.
However, Jawaharlal Nehru’s so called unopposed elevation to the office of the President of the Congress did not automatically lead him to assume the office of the Prime Minister of India. 
Another drama was unfolding. 
Even after Nehru’s election as President of the Congress had become a foregone conclusion and results announced in the first week of May 1946, Maulana (the friend of Nehru) had already announced on April 29 that despite this fresh election for the President, he shall continue to hold office of the Congress President until November 1946. 
It was again Gandhi who came to the rescue of Nehru and thwarted Maulana’s scheme. 
Gandhi immediately wrote to him that Maulana’s “announcement does not seem proper.” Maulana, seeing that his game has been exposed by Gandhi, took a very strange stand. He wrote to Gandhi “I did not expect that you would think that Congress is not safe in my hands.”
The very same Maulana Azad, who had always been considered a great friend and confidante of Jawaharlal and who had issued a statement on 26th April 1946 to elect Nehru as Congress President, wrote in his autobiography, published posthumously in 1959:

“After weighting the pros and cans I came to the conclusion that the election of Sardar Patel would not be desirable in the existing circumstances. Taking all facts into it seemed to me that Jawaharlal should be the new President….
“I acted according to my best judgment but the way things have shaped since then has made to realize that this was perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life. I have regretted no action of mine so much as the decision to withdraw form the Presidentship of the Congress at this junction. It was a mistake which I can describe in Gandhi’s words as the one of Himalayan dimension.

“My second mistake was that when I decided not to stand myself, I did not support Sardar Patel. We differed on many issues but I am convinced that if he had succeeded me as Congress President he would have seen that the Cabinet Mission Plan was successfully implemented. He would have never committed the mistake of Jawaharlal which gave Mr. Jinnah an opportunity of sabotaging the Plan. I can never forgive myself when I think that if I had not committed these mistakes, perhaps the history of the last ten years would have been different.”
Looking back to all those tumultuous years Rajagopalachari, who had all the reasons to be angry, unhappy and uncharitable to Sardar Patel because it was Patel who deprived Rajaji the first Presidentship of India, wrote almost 22 years after Patel’s death:
“When the independence of India was coming close upon us and Gandhiji was the silent master of our affairs, he had come to the decision that Jawaharlal, who among the Congress leaders was the most familiar with foreign affairs, should be the Prime Minister of India, although he knew Vallabhbhai would be the best administrator among them all…
“Undoubtedly it would have been better if Nehru had been asked to be the Foreign Minister and Patel made the Prime Minister. I too fell into the error of believing that Jawaharlal was the more enlightened person of the two… A myth had grown about Patel that he would be harsh towards Muslims. This was a wrong notion but it was the prevailing prejudice.”
Before we close this chapter let us have a look at what one of the most sympathetic biographer of Nehru, who has not hesitated to distort even the well known facts in favour of Nehru, has to say on the issue of Nehru’s elevation to the Presidentship of the Congress and the Prime Ministership of free India:
“In accordance with the time-honored practice of rotating the Presidency, Patel was in line for the post. Fifteen years had elapsed since he presided over the Karachi session where as Nehru had presided at Lucknow and Ferozpur in 1936 and 1937. Moreover, Patel was the overwhelming choice of the Provincial Congress Committees…. Nehru’s ‘election’ was due to Gandhi’s intervention. Patel was persuaded to step down.
“One month after the election the Viceroy invited Nehru, as Congress President, to form an Interim Government. If Gandhi had not intervened, Patel would have been the first de facto Premier of India, in 1946-7. Gandhi certainly knew of the impending creation of Interim Government. One must infer, therefore, that he preferred Nehru as the first Prime Minister of free India. The Sardar was ‘robbed of the prize’ and it rankled deeply. He was then seventy-one while Nehru was fifty-six; in traditionalist Indian terms the elder statesman should have been the first primer and Patel knew that because of his advanced age another opportunity would probably not arise.
“There is striking parallel with Congress election of 1929; on both occasions Gandhi threw his weight behind Nehru at the expense of Patel.”
Thats how Jawaharlal Nehru became first prime minister of India instead of deserving Shri Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. This was major major injustice to India. It was one of the most unfortunate moments of India. Jawaharlal gave us Kashmir problem, China war, wrong socialist development model and his daughter, daughter’s son, his wife and her children to rule India.
(Cont.      .)

Thursday, 1 October 2015

112-Independence and partition of India
एक दुखी परिवार-112
The con-game for the Indian throne.
Despite Gandhi’s open support for Jawaharlal Nehru, the Congress Party overwhelmingly wanted Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel as the Congress President and consequently the first Prime Minister of India, because it considered Patel as ‘a great executive, organizer and leader”, with his feet firmly  on the ground.
The last date for the nominations for the post of the President of Congress, and thereby the first Prime Minister of India, was April 29, 1946.
By this time Gandhi had already made his choice widely known. Still 12 out of 15 Pradesh Congress Committees, the only legal bodies having power to nominate and elect President of the Party, nominated Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
 The remaining three may not have nominated Patel but then they did not even nominate Jawaharlal Nehru.
Thus, no Pradesh Congress Committee proposed the name of Jawaharlal Nehru even on the last day of filing the nominations i.e. April 29, 1946.
 J.B Kripalani took the lead in finding the proposers and seconders for Nehru’s candidacy, in deference to Gandhi’s wishes, during the Working Committee meeting on 29.04.1946 in New Delhi.
 Kripalani succeeded in getting a few Working Committee members and local members of AICC to propose Nehru’s name for the post.
Though, Gandhi knew Nehru's nomination almost missed the April 29 deadline, and also even he could not get at least one Pradesh Congress Committee, the only legitimate body entitled to elect the President of the Congress, to nominate Jawaharlal.
However once Nehru was formally proposed by a few Working Committee members, efforts began to persuade Sardar Patel to withdraw his nomination in favour of Jawaharlal.
Patel sought Gandhiji’s advice who , in turn, asked him to do so and “Vallabhbhai did so at once.
But it must be mentioned that before advising Patel to withdraw , Gandhi had given enough hint to Nehru to allow the legitimate nomination of Sardar Patel to go through the process. Gandhi said to Nehru:

“No PCC has put forward your name…only [a few members of] the Working Committee has.”
This remark of Gandhi was met by Jawaharlal with “complete silence”.
Only after Gandhi was informed that “Jawaharlal will not take the second place” he asked Patel to withdraw. Dr. Rajendra Prasad lamented that Gandhiji “had once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the ‘glamorous Nehru’ and further feared that “Nehru would follow the British ways.”
(He might have meant Nehru was a British nominee whom the British had put into the pedestal, using Gandhi as a conduit).
When Rajendra Prasad was using the phrase “once again” he indeed was referring to the denial of Presidentship of the Congress party to Patel in the years 1929, 1937 and 1946 in preference to Nehru.
 Let it also be mentioned that Rajendra Prasad was not the only person to complain about Gandhi “sacrificing his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the glamorous Nehru.” There were many others as well. But Gandhiji took the decision because he was convinced that “Jawaharlal will not take a second place but by giving Jawaharlal the first place , India would not be deprived of Patel’s services and both will be like two oxen yoked to the Governmental cart. One will need the other and both will pull together”.
(Cont.     .)
111-  Independence and partition of India
एक दुखी परिवार-111
Gandhi, the Mahatma vis a vis
 Azad, the Maulana.
After losing general elections in 1937 Muslim League had gone virtually on war-path against the Congress in particular and Hindus in general and polarized the population on religious lines.
To defuse the situation, from the Congress’ side, Gandhi chose Maulana Abul Kalam Azad as the Congress President in 1940, just a couple of months before the Lahore resolution for the creation of Pakistan.
Because of various factors like World War II, Quit India Movement and most of the Congress leaders in jails, the annual elections for the post of Congress President could not be held until April 1946.
Maulana Azad continued to be the Congress President and represented the Congress in various negotiations with the then Government and visiting Missions. As the War was coming to an end, it was becoming clear that India’s freedom is not very far. It was also very clear that it will be the Congress President (due to the number of seats Congress had won in 1946 elections), who shall be invited to form the Interim Government at the Centre.
Thus, suddenly, the position of the President of the Congress Party , became a potential conduit to the throne-in-the-offing.
Once the election for the post of Congress President was announced, Maulana Azad expressed his desire for the re-election. This fact has been accepted by Azad himself, but in a very twisted way. In his autobiography he writes:
“The question normally arose that there should be fresh Congress elections and a new President chosen. As soon as this was mooted in the Press, a general demand arose that I should be selected President for another term…. There was a general feeling in Congress that since I had conducted the negotiations till now, I should be charged with the task of bringing them to a successful close and implementing them.”
Maulana’s this move “agonized Azad’s close friend and colleague Jawaharlal who had his own ambitions and agenda in the garb of pretence for the nation, especially augmented, pampered and supported by Gandhi, the mahatma.
However, Gandhi had made his choice known in the favour of Jawaharlal Nehru on 20th April, 1946.
This was not the first time that Gandhi spoke about his choice of Nehru; even before the process of election was set in motion. He had been speaking about it from the last several years. But Maulana’s desire for re-election and various newspaper reports about it upset Gandhiji and on 20.04.1946 he wrote to Maulana Azad, who had already been President of Congress for the last six years:
“Please go through the enclosed cuttings.… I have not spoken to anyone of my opinion. When one or two Working Committee members asked me, I said that it would not be right for the same President to continue…. If you are of the same opinion, it may be proper for you to issue a statement about the cuttings [the news item Gandhiji had sent him] and say that you have no intention to become the President again…. In today’s circumstances I would, if asked, prefer Jawaharlal. I have many reasons for this. Why go into them?”
(That is about Gandhi, the Mahatma, whose secular pretensions are carried forward till date by our secularists, failing to discern what is meant by the term 'hypocrisy').
(Cont.    .)