The End of An Era (Hyderabad Memoirs) by K M Munshi

Among the most gruelling challenges that independent India faced was the integration of Princely States to evolve a strong, coherent and unified Bharat. But for the indefatigable efforts of Sardar Vallabhai Patel in the accession of Princely States into the Indian Union would have been a nightmare. At the prospect of transfer of power from the British to Indian Union, several Princely States fervently aspired to remain independent. Leading from the front Nawab of Bhopal, heralded the formation of Chamber of Princes to remain a third dominion. Sardar Vallabhai Patel and V P Menon, convinced, coaxed, coerced 562 Princely States to accede to Indian Union. But five states- Travancore, Bhopal, Jodhpur, Junagarh and Hyderabad remained defiant.

Travancore’s dewan Sir C. P. Ramaswamy Aiyar, a lawyer by profession declared his intention to keep Travancore an independent state in 1946. Influenced by Mohammed Jinnah and with the support of UK which had eyed the Uranium deposits in Travancore, Aiyar stuck to his position. Having narrowly survived an assassination bid by Kerala Socialist Party member, caused a change of mind and Aiyar approved the accession on July 30^th, 1947.

Reluctant to join Indian Union, Nawab of Bhopal who had friendly ties with Muslim League wanted to remain independent. But by July 1947, he acceded to India. Strangely, the Hindu King of Jodhapur with Hindu majority somehow believed that he would stand to benefit more from joining Pakistan, vacillated but finally joined Indian Union. Nawab of Junagarh ruling a Hindu majority state invited Shah Nawaj Bhutto of Muslim League to be the Council of his Ministers. Upon his advice, he signed the accession treaty with Pakistan. India objected to this accession which is against the basic paradigm of Two nation theory and demanded Plebiscite. Overwhelming 91% voted in favour of India and India eventually sent forces to annex the principalities. Junagarh joined India after independence in February 1948.

Of all the five states, Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali Khan VII of Asaf Jahi dynasty who harboured the belief of having special position in India and deemed as the ‘richest man in the World’ wanted to make Hyderabad an independent Islamic state. Exploiting the doctrine of Paramountcy, giving wings to his Islamic State aspirations, Nizam laid claims to the sovereignty of Hyderabad state. He defended his claims insisting that Hyderabad has been an independent state. But in reality, barring Travancore, Udaipur, Kolhapur and few Rajput states none of the states ever enjoyed any independence. With British leaving India, Nizam stubbornly refused accession and bought time by inking a standstill agreement on November 29^th, 1947.

According to the agreement, while both parties, the Dominion of India and State of Hyderabad and Berar haven’t reached concurred on the final nature of relationship between the two, it was agreed that to carry out the execution of terms, Agents be appointed in Hyderabad and Delhi to discharge functions.

KM Munshi was appointed as the Agent of Indian Dominion to oversee the implementation of the agreement in Hyderabad. The book, “The End of an Era” is a first-hand account of the trials and tribulations faced by him while discharging his duties in Hyderabad. It offers rare insights into the agenda of the Nizam, who is obsessed with money and power.

Dogged by the malignancy of selective enunciation of facts and exposition of truths, often the real events are comfortably ducked or brushed under carpet. As a result, while the accession of Hyderabad would characteristically remind people of the “Operation Polo” launched on September 13^th 1948 and eventual Nizam’s surrender on September 17^th which is reckoned as the “Liberation Day” is well known, discussions about nefarious scheme of activities that led to the rushing of Indian troops is totally missing from the public debate.

Munshi’s Memoirs, fill in that lacuna and provides a detailed account of the events that caused an armed conflict between the Hyderabad State forces and Indian Security forces. In so far as the Indian academic literature is concerned, the operation is portrayed as India’s forceful annexation. But the dangers portended to the Indian dominion by the forces proliferating in the region were hardly chronicled. Munshi’s account of the Nizam’s ambitions, ban on the State Congress, birth of Mulki movement, encroachment of Hindu’s political rights and the rise of Muslim fanaticism will help us appreciate the timely intervention of the Indian forces which culminated in the integration of Hyderabad state into Indian Union.

Chosen by Sardar Patel and blessed by Mahatma Gandhi for this unfinished mission of accession of Princely states, Munshi had a daunting challenge ahead. Privy to the agenda of the Nizam, Sardar alerted Munshi of the task that lay ahead of him terming Hyderabad as “the cancer in the belly”. Lying in the Deccan Plateau, the strategic centre of India, Hyderabad effectively separates the North India from the South. Hyderabad state comprising of 86% of Hindus was a battle field for four powers- Nizam, Majlis-i-Ittehad-ul-Mussulmeen (MIM), Hyderabad State Congress and the Communist Party. With Nizam tacitly approving the objectives of MIM of uniting all Muslims in state and reducing the Hindu majority by mass conversions into Islam, both of them worked as single unit.

Founded by Mahmud Nawaz Khan in 1926, this militant communal outfit soon proliferated into a robust network of Ittehads under the patronage of Nizam. Perceiving it as a weapon to realise his goal of remaining independent, Nizam pampered the MIM and allowed himself to drown in this web of intrigue. Soon all his level-headed, sensible and prudent entourage of Ministers and advisers were replaced by MIM sympathisers and supporters. Subsequently, Ittehadis penetrated every organ of the administration. Building a strong propaganda network and loyal media houses, MIM held its sway over the Hyderabad state. With its unflinching loyalty towards Muslim League, it birthed the idea of political Islam and sowed seeds of enmity between Muslims and Non-Muslims.

MIM brought about Muslim consolidation, pressurised Nizam to distort the recommendation of the reforms committee by insisting on 50:50 representation of Muslims and non-Muslims in Legislative council. This marked the political subjugation of Hindus whose religious freedom was soon trampled.

Coincidentally, around the same time, the Communist party in India driven by the ideology of Sovetizing the regions in Andhra and Hyderabad, made friendly overtures to State Congress, penetrated their ranks and soon used the Congress cloak to expand its base. Countries believed that independent India burdened by the bloody partition, mass influx of refugees, raids by Pakistani tribes in Kashmir would struggle to find feet and collapse. Keen on capitalising on this precarious domestic situation, Communists unleashed their agenda.

Concomitantly communists and Razakars or the Ittehads raided, looted, plundered villages and robbed them of the precious jewels and cash to build armies and buy weapons. Lured by the MIM agenda, Nizam turned a blind eye to the internal security. Roping in the ranks of depressed class which were called the Harijan Ittehads, Razakars stormed in to the villages and destroyed, burnt houses and raped Hindu women.

Amid this alarming unrest, Nizam refused to honour the terms of the Standstill agreement and denied entry of the central forces to restore peace and harmony. In the meanwhile, MIM steadily built an army of volunteers and dispatched representatives to European countries for procuring advanced weapons and air support. 

Slowly, Nizam allowed himself to become puppet of MIM, which took orders from Jinnah. With Ittehads excesses reaching a tipping point, Nizam who couldn’t exercise his free finally managed to reach out to India Union. But by this time, Ittehads who completely took over the reigns from Nizam prepared for a full-blown war.

Unfortunately, all these events in the run that triggered “Operation Polo” by the Indian Union find a scant mention in our academic records. As Agent of Indian Union in Hyderabad, KM Munshi, makes record of all his astute observations which includes the steady rise of Islam fanaticism and the seasoned tactics of the Communists in his memoir.

After the death of MIM founder, Kasim Razvi, as President steered the movement through his insinuating speech. On the eve of Weapons Week, he said- “Hyderabad is an Islamic State. The Indian Union is trying to wipe out this Muslim rule from Deccan. Remember that there are four and a half crores of Muslims in the Dominion, looking to raise the banner of this Islamic State…The time is not far when we have to throw our entire weight to maintain the integrity of this Islamic State. We have been ruling the Deccan for the last 800 years and we shall rule it whether the Indian Union likes it or not.

Power has come to the hands of the Indian Union after one thousand years. They are not capable of ruling that is the reason why they lost it to Muslims. Now when that power has come to them, they think they can brow beat us and terrorise us by bullying and blustering…. I know every one of you is imbued with spirit of jehad. Remember Karbala.”

People in the Hyderabad had to survive the atrocities of Communists. The following is the summary of the government report- “From the 15^th August, 1946 to 13^th September, 1948, they (Communists) brutally murdered nearly 2000 persons, attacked 22 Police out posts, seized and destroyed village records, manhandled a large number of village officials, burnt ‘chadris’ and Customs outposts, captured 230 guns, looted or destroyed Paddy and robbed cash and jewellery worth more than a million rupees. They attempted large-scale disruption of communication and lines of supply and transport and steadily and systematically adopted the technique of guerrilla fighting with the arms and resources at their disposal.”

Operation Polo wasn’t a simple annexation exercise, this “Police Action” by Indian Dominion effectively stemmed the rising tide of Islamist fanaticism and the spurious Communist expansion in South India. Seven decades hence, the ascendent inclement wave of Political Islam under the aegis of a communal political party with roots in MIM and the concurrent dominant narrative setting by vested interests akin to the Nizam era is creating ripples across the country. Interestingly, the astute observations made by Munshi seven decades ago, seem to be more relevant now than ever.

Besides, uncovering the indispensable missing links of the annexation story of Hyderabad, this book enhances common understanding about the prevalent socio-political environment of the Deccan and the quintessential struggles faced by non-Muslims under a Muslim ruler swept off by his feet by a communal outfit.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Can Pakistan ever overcome the ideological intransigence to normalise ties with Israel?

In what can be termed as history in making, a quick succession of four Muslim countries and a Buddhist country have established diplomatic ties with Israel. The US-driven and US-mediated diplomatic outreach has paved ways for formal ties between the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco and Israel.

Unlike the Abraham Accords, formal ties between and Thimphu and Tel Aviv on December 12^th amid China’s unabated expansionism has been a pleasant surprise. It is no secret that India which has close ties with Bhutan as per the 1949 India-Bhutan Friendship and the newly amended 2007 Pact, India has in part guided Bhutan’s foreign policy. Accordingly, to usher the secluded Himalayan Country into an era of development and wean it away from the pernicious Middle Kingdom’s influence, New Delhi must have brokered these ties.

Experts point out that Israel’s ties with Morocco is an outcome of Israel’s “Peripheral strategy” of reaching out to far and distant countries that have no stakes in Israel- Palestine dispute or ones that have troubled ties with its enemies. Israel’s outreach to African countries clearly fits the earlier category and the stead-fast diplomatic engagement with Arab countries alludes to the latter.

The stunning progress of Israeli-UAE ties, secret trip of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mossad Chief Yossi to Riyadh facilitated by US officials, reports of Indonesia and Oman lining up to forge ties together point to Israel’s rise as pivotal node in Middle East’s geopolitics. Israel’s steady elevation has caught the attention of Pakistan where the clamour for recognising Israel is gaining momentum.

In October, ‘selected Prime Minister’ Imran Khan officially acknowledged that “he is under tremendous pressure to recognise Israel”. Such advocacy by Islamabad isn’t new, foreign policy debates on Israel have become a cyclical affair. After failing to internationalise Kashmir issue and garner enough support, last year, Pakistan marshalled establishment journalists to conduct public debates on possibilities of establishing ties with Israel to gauge the pulse of the public fed on liberal doses of anti-Semitism.  Overrun by the Mullahs and fundamentalists who rebuked such an initiative, Pakistan’s Israeli advocates retired back to woods. Here is a brief overview of Pakistan’s outreach to Israel https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/should-india-be-concerned-about-pakistan-israel-formal-ties

Presently, formalisation of ties between the UAE and Israel, besides being a diplomatic milestone, has thrown the Muslim countries especially Pakistan which can come into existence on religious nationalism into a catch-22 kind of situation. Reacting cautiously Pakistan declared, “this development will have far-reaching implications”. It also added, “Pakistan has an abiding commitment to the full realization of the legitimate rights of the Palestine people, including the right to self-determination. Peace and stability in the Middle East is also Pakistan’s key priority”^1. Barely a month later, Bahrain formally forged ties with Israel. Clearly, diplomatic recognition of Israel by two major Gulf countries wouldn’t have been done without tacit approval of Saudi.

But then Pakistan which has always considered itself as the flag-bearer of Muslims; guided by the religious ideology espoused Palestine causes. By adopting a high moral ground, Islamabad has ideologically strangulated itself into a position which prevented it from taking any rational decisions. For decades, feeding on the Petro dollars from the Arab countries, religious leaders in Pakistan spewed venom against Israel and indoctrinated the unsuspected public with radical doctrines.

Pakistan and Israel are the only two nations which have come into existence on the basis of religion. But Islamabad was never favourably disposed towards Israel and never lost an opportunity to draw parallels between India and Israel and in portraying them as aggressors occupying territories. Largely guided by the doctrine of Islam solidarity as foreign policy, Pakistan never paid heed to the saner voices that batted for a recalibration of this approach.

Given the imminent benefits of engaging with Israel which included a promise of improved relations with the US, influence of Jewish lobby and purchase of the most sophisticated weaponry among other things, Pakistani establishment averred from taking a right call. Riddled with internal fissures, the illusionary Muslim World is falling off and significance of the Islamic solidarity is fading as well.

As of now, the dominant geopolitical reality of the Middle East has been the burgeoning hostilities between the Sunni bloc and Iran, Turkey. Swamped by the nuclear ambitions of Iran and Ottoman Empire resurrection agenda of Turkey, Middle East’s peace and stability has gone for a toss. Iran’s adventurous engagements in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Turkey’s implicit support the Muslim Brotherhood has eventually pushed the common cause of Palestine to a corner. To combat the nuclear ambitions of Iran, Arab countries began engaging with Israel. Formalisation of ties between Arab countries and Israel is a reflection of this new reality.

During its formative years, Pakistan has levitated to Arab World and capitalised Islam solidarity to internationalise Kashmir issue. For gainful economic returns, in the form of remittances and energy security as well, Islamabad deepened ties with Saudi and the UAE. Eventually, suffering from lack of cultural identity, Pakistan claimed to have Saudi origins. These were the times when Muslim World considered ties with Israel as Kosher. Though Pakistan toyed the idea of reaching out to Israel after India established full diplomatic ties in 1992, for the fear of antagonising the Muslim World, Pakistan disbanded the idea of recognising Israel. But continued to operate with Israel through back channels. Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri documented Pakistan’s back channel connections with Israeli sources in his book-“Neither a Hawk nor a Dove”.

For the first time in 2005, Pakistan openly disclosed about a meeting between Pakistani Foreign Minister Kasuri and his Israeli counterpart Silvan Shalom in Turkey. This was followed by an encounter between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the UN². Interestingly, these interactions between two countries didn’t pave way for bilateral ties. While Pakistani leaders Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif favoured recalibration of Israel policy, Musharraf the first time initiated public debate on Israel in Pakistan in 2003. Interestingly, despite the covert contacts, Pakistan by and large considered formal engagements with Israel a taboo.

The Arab Spring, economic recession, fluctuating global of crude oil prices, rising security challenges, burgeoning terrorism prompted Gulf countries to make new strategic alignments. Arab countries began to seek new friendships wherein security and economic interests trumped Muslim solidarity. This paved way for informal ties with Israel and buttressing of relationship with India. Arab countries recalibrated approach has been at the heart of OIC’s refusal to pass an anti-India resolution in the wake of abrogation of Art 370.

Notwithstanding the generous financial aid and oil supplies proffered by the Arab countries, frustrated Pakistan demanded Riyadh to show leadership and threatened to prop up Turkey to hold the mantle of Muslim World. Pakistan’s disparaging tone shook the pillars of its sturdy relationship with Arab countries. Besides, Pakistan’s shifting loyalties to Turkey for voicing support to Kashmir issue and new found enthusiasm to promote Turkish culture clearly hinted at Pakistan’s misplaced priorities.

Drawn over by Kashmir obsession, Pakistan has become oblivious to changing contours of the evolving geopolitics. On the contrary, dumping the regressive orthodoxy of anti-Zionism, Arab countries are establishing ties with Israel. Cognizant of strategic implications, sections in Pakistan military have started floating the trial balloon to initiate public debate and evolve a positive consensus that defies any opposition to rapprochement with Israel. Rightly so, the Muslim countries and especially, Saudi Arabia has been pushing Pakistan to abandon religious zealotry and engage with Israel so as build a strong case for its formal normalisation of ties with Israel.

Pakistan is considered a paragon of Islamic ideology by the Muslim World and an official endorsement by Islamabad would ameliorate traditional hostility of Muslim countries towards Israel. Being only nuclear Muslim country, Pakistan always took moral high ground.  In this context, Saudi’s demand for the pay back of the debt, cutting off oil supplies and UAE’s refusal for forfeiture of loans and denial of visas to Pakistanis can be deemed as pressure points forcing Islamabad to revisit its Israel policy.

Indeed, Pakistan will have so much to gain by engaging with Israel, besides the assured economic and financial bounties from Arab world, Pakistan can benefit from the Israel’s technological advancements in agriculture, water conservation, purchase of advanced defence equipment purchases can bolster its national security. This will be a huge boost to Islamabad’s security and they earn the brownie points from powerful Jewish lobby and gain influence in Capitol Hill. Having deftly managed its ties with Turkey and Iran, Pakistan is now bogged down by the dilemma of losing this unique leverage by formalising ties with Israel.

However, Israel isn’t averse to idea of building ties with Pakistan and Prime Minister Netanyahu dismissed the remarks of his country’s ties with India aren’t an obstruction. In an interview, in January 2018, he said, “We are not enemies of Pakistan and Pakistan shouldn’t be our enemy either”³. Interestingly, towards end of 2018, social media was abuzz after a journal reported of Israeli jet landing in Islamabad and staying put on Pakistani territory for 8 hours. Though Pakistan quickly dismissed these reports, months later, for the first time a Pakistani Jew was allowed to travel to Israel.

This apparent softening of stance was soon dampened by the warnings of Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani, “emerging nexus between the US, India and Israel is a major threat to ummah”⁴that continued to dominate the public discourse.

Impelled by slew of normalisations the debate on Israel in Pakistan has gained much momentum. Noor Dahri, founder of British Think Tank Islamic Theology of Counter Terrorism indicated that Pakistani officials have reportedly travelled to Tel-Aviv via London and hinted at a successful meeting. Ever since the rumour mills have been speculating some forward movement⁵. If true, this pragmatic move might have potential to bring about new changes in Pakistan’s foreign policy.

But given, the prevalence and surge of vicious and vindictive politics ever since Khan’s ascent to power, a surge in wave of radical extremism that began to envelope and dominate the domestic political discourse. Pakistan is unlikely to recalibrate its Israel policy. Burgeoning religious fanaticism is hardly invoking any confidence of Pakistan shedding and dumping its zealotry. Fundamentalists have threatened establishment of dire consequences if it reconciles recognition of Israel.

With sinking political, financial and diplomatic fortunes, Pakistan is staring at an abyss, with the combined opposition already on a war path, Pakistan government might eventually put Israel issue on back burner. Clarifying Khan’s position, Foreign Office of Pakistan unequivocally rejected the baseless speculations regarding possibility of recognition of Israel. It added, “unless a just settlement of Palestine issue, satisfactory to Palestinian people, is found, Pakistan cannot recognise Israel”⁶.

@ Copyrights reserved.

The Guise of Genuity is off the Farmers Protests

 

Bandhs and Chakka jams have become new norm in India in the recent past. Even as Brinda Karat, berates Modi government doesn’t understand D of Democracy and peddles the trope of fascism, the unending season of Bandhs continues to exemplify a flourishing democratic fabric of the country. The call for pan-India bandhs against legislations passed by the democratically elected representatives has become more pronounced in the recent past.

Amid the unceasing efforts to bring the nation to its knees on some pretext or the other, people are bucking the trend and moving on as if it’s business as usual. The recently concluded All India Bandh the Farmers for repealing of the new farm bills which elicited a lukewarm response has clearly mirrored this emergent phenomenon. Coming months after the so called peaceful Shaheen Bagh anti-CAA protests that laid siege to Delhi’s arterial roads for months and snowballed into riots, people have become largely indifferent to the idea of peace protests that are disrupting normal life. The transmogrification of Shaheen Bagh has confirmed the worst fears of people.

Emerging wiser after the protests which has thrown life out of gear, people are now diligently evaluating their agenda, appraising the motives and assessing the outcomes of such agitations launched with much fanfare in cahoots with regular actors. Shaheen Bagh protests has opened a Pandora Box exposing the dubious intentions of the vested interests hell-bent on capitalising the festering societal wounds and the past subjugations to create unrest in the country.

The establishment has been at logger heads with the Modi government ever since its advent to power in 2014. Though country didn’t witness any terror attacks, except in Kashmir in the past six years and people lived peacefully, society witnessed a studied discord marked by spurious attempts to stoke communal tensions. Inundating the national discourse with the hitherto unfamiliar jargon like intolerance, fascism, hypernationalism and the like and unleashing post-truth media trials by coopting with international agencies, the establishment strived to accentuate societal fissures. Stigmatizing the reforms and legislations by imputing motives of communalism, the establishment endeavoured to paint a picture of gloom and unrest in the country. Main streaming candle marches and unleashing award wapsi movement, they tried to garner international attention to the internal affairs of the country.

Voted out by the people for failing to deliver, political parties, pandered to the establishment to take on the elected government. The first term of Modi government characteristically witnessed this orchestrated mud-slinging campaigns. But this diabolical game plan of establishment boomeranged and Modi government was voted to power with thumping majority in 2019.

Undeterred by the nefarious agenda of the establishment, defiant Modi heralded the country into a regime of reforms with renewed vigour and intensity. Rattled by the new legislations, which included abrogation of article 370, triple talaq and CAA, breaching the redlines, making no secret of their dubious connections the establishment launched nationwide protests. While the agitations and dharnas elsewhere failed to make any dent, Shaheen Bagh protests which swelled into Delhi riots of 2020 quintessentially reminded people of scandalous agenda of the establishment.

By religiously replicating the tried Shaheen Bagh framework of hijacking the capital city, Punjab farmers have inadvertently, triggered latent suspicions about the veracity of their intentions. Spearheaded by seasoned activists, who vociferously oppose every move of the government, since its very inception, farmers protests elicited mixed responses.  Economists who bragged Modi government for failing on the promise of big-bang reforms welcomed new farm laws as the 1991 moment for Agriculture. Tipped to herald Indian agriculture into second green revolution by doubling farmers income, the three bills received a unanimous nod from policy makers as well.

Politicizing these reforms, Congress denounced them and soon the Congress ruled states pledged to bring out alternate laws for their states. Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh government even passed three laws by-passing the central government legislation. Notwithstanding this development, Punjab farmers first staged a rail roko in the state and then gheraoed Delhi. Marked by absence of strident opposition from other parts of country, people viewed the outrage of Punjab farmers with scepticism.

But the international players quickly lapped up these protests. The usual suspects from across the globe buttressed by India’s adversaries upped ante against India. Advocating for Punjab farmers Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, leader of New Democratic Party Jagmeet Singh, 36 British MPs lashed out at India. In what can be considered as a sequel to foreign players reaction to anti-CAA protests, similar kind of protests with Khalistani flags marred central London and the same lobby in the US backed Punjab farmers. Intriguingly, Canada and the US which opposed India’s MSP (Minimum Support Price) have supported protesting farmers demanding MSP exposing their duplicity.

In the aftermath of the Delhi riots, social media activists have laid threadbare the nexus of the all-India anti-CAA protests meticulously. Common man quickly grasped the unmissable pattern that adduced Shaheen Bagh making a comeback with farmers protests. As a result, resisting the temptation to be lured by virtue signalling of solidarity, Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT), All India Transporters Welfare Association (AITWA) extended support to Farmers Protests. Though Bankers Union supported the Bandh, they reported to work.

Needless to say, the coming together of all opposition parties including the Congress party, which pledged agriculture reforms in their 2019 manifesto and Sharad Pawar, who vociferously batted for abolition of APMC, the high-pitched agitation isn’t about the farmers rights. It is yet another attempt by political parties to derail the BJP government.

Government held six rounds of talks in the past 14days with farmers to address their concerns regarding the new farm bills. At the time of writing, government has reportedly sent a 10-point proposal to agitating farmers associations making necessary amendments in the provisions to assuage farmers fears. But farmers outrightly rejected the proposal insisting on nothing less than complete repealing of the three farm bills. Such intransigence of farmers and reluctance to reach a middle ground implicitly strengthened growing suspicions of nefarious underlying agenda exposed the guise of genuity of the protests.

Amid protests 1.2 lakh farmers from Haryana and farmers organisations from Odisha have extended support to farm bills. But claiming to be representatives of entire farming community, the protestors announced plans to Gherao Delhi on December 12^th blocking the Delhi-Agra and Delhi-Jaipur highways and free all tolls across the country. Barely hours after leaders of four opposition parties met the President seeking repeal of the bills, farmers rejected government’s proposal. 

Interestingly, the much-touted 2020 Khalistan Referendum remained a pipe dream. Disenchanted Khalistan activists have been waiting for an opportune time to reenergise the movement and farm protests have perfectly fit their bill. Growing political support to farmers, implicit support of the foreign actors and obstinate approach of farmers clearly hints at a larger political agenda.

Common man, in India has by and large smarted the art of reading through the double standards of professional activists and their barraged hypocrisy. On the contrary, BJP which is known to have excelled the art of communication failed to crack the farmer protests nexus. It is time BJP constitutes special teams to communicate the benefits of laws to farmers directly, track the money trails to the protestors from foreign agents and expose the misinformation peddled by the protestors. 

@ Copyrights reserved.

Nehru: The Lotus Eater from Kashmir

The exalted status bequeathed to the first Prime Minister of India; Jawaharlal Nehru is unparalleled in Modern History. Together the astounding levels of lavish praise heaped on Nehru by the avowed dynasty courtiers attributing nearly everything under Indian Sky post-Independence to him has only stirred up my genuine curiosity to delve deeper into the Nehruvian phenomenon. The Nehruvian cult which continues to thrive on the patronage of the dynasty besides dominating the academic and literally circles have always been highly critical of any work that projected Nehru in a poor light.

An honest appraisal of a stalwart, acclaimed as triumvirate of Freedom Movement, others being Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Vallabhai Patel is essential to reminisce his legacy for posterity. More than seven decades to independence shackled by the mistakes of past, India continues to pay heavy price for glaring misjudgements by the man at the helm of affairs, Nehru, who is coveted with the honour of scripting of country’s foreign policy as well. 

Notwithstanding the mess, India has been grappling through since independence; every effort has been made to etch his impregnable mark on India for eternity by naming almost all major projects, government schemes or initiatives, universities after him. With his towering Himalayan blunders continue stare in face, it is important to revisit and rediscover the man and his legacy.

On the eve of Nehru’s birth anniversary, I came across an article where Ramachandra Guha eloquently referred to the testimony of a Nehru-baiter DF Karaka, the author of the book Nehru: The Lotus Eater from Kashmir. As per Greek Mythology, Odysseus during his return from Troy, had encountered a special tribe that consumed mysterious lotus plant which made them dreamy and forgetful. Pejoratively, in the modern world, Lotus eater refers to anyone who is lazy, leads a laidback, peaceful and decadent life. Setting aside the debate, whether Nehru fits this definition, the title of the book and the controversy surrounding it interested me.

Kanaka who was highly derided for his disparaging remarks towards Nehru was indeed, the first person, to have dug out an article printed in Modern Review in 1938. It read, “Jawaharlal cannot become a fascist. And yet he has all the makings of a dictator in him-vast popularity, strong will directed to a well-defined purpose, energy, pride, organisational capacity, ability, hardness, and with all his love of the crowd, an intolerance of others and certain contempt for the weak and inefficient. His flashes of temper are well-known, and even when they are controlled, the curling of the lips betrays him. His overmastering desire to get things done, to sweep away what he dislikes and build anew, will hardly brook for long the slow process of democracy. He may keep the husk but he will see to it that it bends to his will. In normal times he would just be an efficient and successful executive, but in this revolutionary epoch, Caesarism is always at the door, and is it not possible that Jawaharlal might fancy himself as a Caeser?

Therein lies the danger for Jawaharlal and for India…….. Let us not…spoil him by too much of adulation and praise. His conceit, if any, is already formidable. It must be checked. We want no Caesars”.

Nobody indeed paid much attention to this incredible article which verily sums up Jawaharlal, written by the man himself under an anonymous name warning the country of his unchecked consequent rise in future.

Clearly, just months into power, Nehru unleashed the state machinery and instituted the first amendment to take on anyone legally who contradicted him. Rehearsing privately to play the role of ‘Liberator of Asia’, Nehru blissfully chose to ignore Mao Communist driven agenda to usurp Tibet as ‘liberation exercise of Tibet’. Notwithstanding the consequences of recognising the suzerainty of China over Tibet, Nehru ordered the recall of our trade representative from Kashgar and Indian Mission and eventually facilitated the smooth takeover of Tibet by the Chinese forces. Dismissing the momentous consequences of Chinese penetration close to Indian frontiers with a remark that “communists are not unduly manageable”, Nehru has irrevocably emboldened China.

Underscoring the extent of the irreparable damage, Karaka quotes an eminent historian Professor Arnold Toynbee’s prescient observation in “Civilisation on Trial”, “there would be two theatres of war in World War III, and that one of them would be Tibet. Tibet touches not only the disturbed area of Nepal, but also the disputed portion of Kashmir; important trade routes pass through Ladakh. Tibet also borders on Assam, which has been for sometime in a restless state due to perpetual communist activities of which our government is aware, but not poignantly”.

The open-ended standoff with China this year holds a mirror to the misplaced judgements and warped understanding and indifferent response of Nehru towards Chinese Communist agenda. Smitten by neutrality, Nehru continued to side and support China at the UN despite being declared an aggressor in the Korean war. Nehru’s vague and untenable foreign policy exasperated America and Soviet Union.

Karaka’s 114-page racy commentary which sums up his perspective of Nehru is replete of several devastating accounts wherein Nehru’s neutrality and his fetish for enhancing pride and prestige abroad has permanently crippled India’s interests. Elated by a rousing reception in Srinagar, post- Pakistan tribal raids on Kashmir valley, ignoring the devastation heaped by the marauders and the valiant defence put up by the Indian security forces, Nehru promised Kashmiris the right to decide their future. His solemn pledge to people to feel free to choose whatever government they desired notwithstanding the cost of Rs 900,000 incurred by Indian government months after the partition is yet another testimony to Nehru’s instinct of committing at the spur of moment, without any thought on consequences. Seven decades hence, India is still fire-fighting the consequences of his impetuous decision.

Resignation of Finance Minister of John Matthai, impulsive order on stopping food imports in 1949 and the subsequent trail of famines across different parts of India, appointment of Dr Solomon Trone a little known economist at salary more than Prime Minister to devise Industrial Planning for India, classic double stance on Common Wealth and several episodes which etch the book provide a rare insight into the personality of the man who is regarded as “high man on the totem pole”. Driven by instincts, Nehru was never fluent with facts and hardly had the patience to master the details.

More essentially, the book sheds light on the hypocrisies of Nehru and the unbridgeable gap between “theory and practice” which even his staunchest followers might find it difficult to justify. The book encapsulates the first seven years of Nehru’s regime and the irresistible attributes of his personality which includes his great hold over the nation, ability to stand in the face of chaos and uncertainly. Paying ode to his compelling sincerity and intolerance to sectarianism, he hails Nehru’s exceptional ability to bring dissenting forces together. India weathered the most brutal partition, in part due to his emotional force which has been a great unifier.

Surrounded by a legion of sycophants who served as his ears and eyes, Nehru held sway over the people with “his inexplicable mesmeric power”, says the author. The book is an interesting read for anyone who is open-minded and keen on knowing the other side of the story.

@ Copyrights reserved.