Pages

Wednesday, 21 August 2013

Three Blunders of Nehru that India still regrets-




Jawaharlal Nehru was the first Prime Minister of India. He became the prime minister of the country when it was the most needed. He has floated the country through many tough situation by some of his intelligent decision but there were some decision that India is regretting and going to regret for a long time.


The Kashmir agreement (1947)

Before 1947, India was ruled by Britain that time there were some states directly under British control, while some were princely states which were permitted to be autonomous till they paid taxes to the British. At the time of partition, the British organized the Instrument of Accession and gave a choice to these princely states to join the territory of their choice, either India or Pakistan. Kashmir had a majority Muslim population, ruled by Hari Singh. The British wanted Hari Singh to accede to Pakistan but the Raja wanted to remain independent.




In the meantime, there were tribal incursions to Kashmir from Pakistan and the Raja decided to sign the Instrument of Accesion in favour India. But Louis Mountbatten, added an additional sentence in the Instrument of Accesion particularly for Kashmir, which now said that people of Kashmir will in future decide whether to choose India, or Pakistan.

By this time, Kashmir was already occupied by invading tribals. India fought back the tribals and chased the Pathans as far as upto Muzaffarbad. India should have used the legality of Instrument of Accession to fight for Kashmir. Instead, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru prematurely promised the UN that a referendum will be held in which Kashmiris can vote and decide their future. It was one of the major blunder committed in independent India which is still the major bone of argument between India and Pakistan.


Linguistic division of India


The worst thing happened during nehru’s working period was the linguistic division. Although Nehru was not responsible for the linguistic division but unfortunately it occurred under his regimen. Potti Sreeramulu had taken to hunger strike demanding a separate state for telugu-speaking population. Rajendra Prasad and Vallabhbhai Patel had warned Nehru of the implication of division on the basis of language, but Sreeramulu's death led Nehru to declare the formation of Andhra Pradesh.  What followed is confusion and hatred for other linguistic groups.

The demand for the formation of a separate state of Telangana, Shiv Sena's agenda to reserve Maharashtra only for the "Marathi Manus", dispute over the distribution of the Yamuna between Punjab, Haryana and Delhi are a few after effects.

Perhaps this has positive economic aspects, but the fact that regional identity is bigger than the National identity is a major threat to India.


The india-China war (1962)


Dalai Nama in 1959 crossed the McMahon Line into India and was granted political sanctuary. Indian border police began to construct check posts along the McMahon Line, and moved border patrols forward toward the frontier of Tibet as per Nehru's "Forward policy". This resulted in two clashes in 1959.

Several senior Indian Army officers considered the "forward policy" as militarily unwise, on the grounds that the Indian Army was neither logistically nor ready to deal with Chinese military power in the borders. Nehru manipulated that the Chinese would not stand up against an India backed by both the United States and Russia, ignored the advice of the officers. By the end of 1961, Nehru had sent enough Indian Army troops into Aksai Chin to establish about 43 posts on the Ladakh frontier claimed by China. Chinese combat power was organized around an Army with a strength of approximately 4,500 officers and 38,400 soldiers and  had gained extensive experience in both mountain and cold weather warfare due the Korean war.

Nehru sustained to overlook the advice of his generals about the army's poor state of readiness; he also continued to adopt that China would not or could not assert herself against India. The Cuban missile crisis gave China the perfect time to attack. The serious fighting of the 1962 China-India Border War extended from October 10, 1962, until November 20, 1962. As soon as the Cuban crisis ended at the end of October, Chinese army pulled back as US threatened to use Nuclear weapons on China.






Monday, 12 August 2013

Does Indian Army meant to die??


Kaun yaad rakhta hai siyah waqt ke saathyion ko kabhi;
Log to subah hotey hi chirag bujha dete hain 

It may have been restrained as a generic ‘sher’ but right now, seems suitable for the Indian army  (or even police personnel) who do their duty, so that the mighty political class of this country especially can sleep in peace (the common man is not important, of course).  



If we have faith in a certain Mr Bhim Singh, who happens to be Bihar's rural works and Panchayati Raj minister, jawans of the Indian army, who die at the border fighting the enemy, are meant to die that way. So that certain people like Mr Singh can sleep in peace.

What’s such a big deal about the demise of jawans at LOC, it’s the call of their profession, isn’t it, Mr Bhim Singh? A professional peril, as you suggested, Mr Singh?

They are just doing their job that they are paid for, just as doctors are meant to treat patients, lawyers are meant to fight cases, and salesmen are supposed to sell, isn’t it, Mr Singh?

What about politicians? And especially the obnoxious ones, Mr Singh? What is their job, have you ever wondered?

“People join army or police for sahadat (martyrdom),” — this is what you had said when the bodies of four soldiers of the Bihar Regiment killed by Pakistan army in Poonch sector in Jammu and Kashmir on August 6, arrived in Patna, in response to a question on why JD (U) ministers were not present to receive the bodies.

And you had added a couple of more nasty statements to display your cruel and awful attitude towards jawans.

India’s politicians are some of the most despicable people ever born and the misfortune of the country is that the voters, who go out to vote in the hope of electing a new, different political representative every time, don’t really have a choice.

And so, we’ve people like Bhim Singh representing us from almost every part of the country.

Bhim Singh is not a solitary instance of irresponsible public servants wondering aloud the despicable thoughts they anchorage for the common people they are meant to ‘serve’. Neither is his insolence an exception.

Political class, generally, reserves only gross scorn for the common Indian, evident in the way they exploit the country’s resources only for their own personal benefit.

And more ‘chhut bhaiyya’ the politician, the worse is the effrontery. That’s a term in the Hindi belt reserved for the small-time political lackey who hangs around the bigger stalwarts but sports insolence fit for a king.

Where does this insolence topped with a sense of invincibility come from?

Possibly, from the statistic that these guys have cumulative so much wealth and power that they know they can buy anything, including immunity against downright disregard of those who keep peace at the borders to ensure that the rest of the country can go about its job in safety.

How would they know? After all, they are well-protected with an overwhelming percentage of our police force on VIP duty.

And we are not even getting into the lethargy shown by the central government over and again on the killing of our policemen and para-military personnel on the border and in insurgency-hit areas within the country. Remember April 2010 when 75 CRPF men were killed in the deadliest Maoist attack in Dantewada in Chhattisgarh?

I also have a objection against those activists, who have the power of vocal chords and platforms to be heard for not raising any voice against this lethargy, especially against our army. They always have many opinions on several other issues, including human rights of the people who are convicted criminals.

The obnoxious attitude towards our army is just not in order. A career in the armed forces does not hold charm for most young Indians like it used to earlier – as of late last year, there was a shortfall of nearly 10,000 officers in the army alone – but at least, we can show respect for people who ensure that we go about our daily lives in peace.

Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar was instant in getting Bhim Singh to ask for forgiveness for his effrontery, and even the opposition has bayed for his blood since then, but I want to hand you a gun, Mr Singh, and send you to the border for an indefinite period. You will then learn what it is to do a job fairly. And to admiration those who do theirs, even when faced with death.

Thursday, 1 August 2013

The Reason for creation of Telangana, political or social???

Congress-Led UPA ruling coalition approves formation of new state Telangana by dividing Andhra Pradesh. But what took it so long to approve Telangana as 29th state as telangana state demand was from 1948. The formation of telangana has raised many question.  Does small states guarantee of good governance??? Or Congress looking for political advantage by formation of telangana?


Subsequent to integration of 550 princely dominions into the Indian Union in 1956, languages was chosen as the basis on which the new states were formed. Only exception was Hindi the heartland which was so massive that it was considered sensible to create several states.





The reason behind the formation of linguistic states was the belief that language is the basis of culture. If same language was spoken over a state it meant that it represented identical culture. But it was a faulty belief to start with. In fact, Andhra Pradesh was the first state that was created on a linguistic basis. In fact, Andhra Pradesh was the first state that was formed on a linguistic basis. The state was formed against the wishes of the people of Telangana. People of Telangana never wanted the region to be merged with the Andhra state (formed in 1953 after separation from Madras state) as they felt that Andhra's culture was different from Telangana.



This was the basic difference between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and why people of Telangana wanted their state?? Now lets focus on Will congress get political advantage from formation of telangana.



Kiran Kumar Reddy is a devoted Congressman and was chosen by Congress president Sonia Gandhi to be the chief minister of the state in the aftermath of a soaring YSR Reddy. But history is not on his sided. His ministers and MLAs are resigning but that’s not an issue here. As 29th state of the Indian Union comes into presence in the next few months, he should replicate on the historicity of the formation of the 26th, 27th & 28th states of the Indian Union – Chhattisgarh out of Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand out of Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand out of Bihar.



It is quite fascinating that none of the three chief ministers who controlled over the parent state – Digvijaya Singh in Madhya Pradesh, Rajnath Singh in Uttar Pradesh and Rabri Devi in Bihar retuned to power after the split of their states. But all of three lose election when elections were in respective state.



In Andhra Pradesh, both lok sabha and state assembly elections will coincide in april-may 2014. Kiran Kumar Reddy will require simply more luck or hard work of party workers to return to power. What is sure for now, is that he is intended to the have history recurrence for him as did for the three above cited chief ministers. But he knows that if he keeps party high command in good humor, he can still have a good career in the party even if the game is lost out for him in the home state.



Equally fascinating is to know that those who created history by being the chief minister of these three new found states Ajit Jogi in Chhatisgarh, Nityanand Swami in Uttrakhand and Babulal Marandi in Jharkhand also did not return to power.



Congress won maximum number of seats from Andhra Pradesh in 2009 lok sabha elections. Now after the formation of Telagana, Andhra Pradesh will  have 25 seats out of 42 and rest 17 will be in Telangana. In this 17, Congress is ruling in 12 seats of course cause of YSR reddy. Like the past formation os state BJP leadership of 2000, the Congress high command has good solid reasons to formTelangana. The party has cut its losses, which it would have otherwise grievously suffered if it had not spitted Andhra. The party may still loose badly in the 25 parliamentary seats of the parent state Andhra Pradesh, but could gain ominously in the 17 seats of the Telangana region, as after the formation of Telangana (TRS) will not have any political issue so most probably TRS will merge with Congress.



Now look at the development story, Does small states a guarantee of good governance?? I will go into facts for this question. Between 2004-05 to 2011-12, the annual growth rate of the mother-daughter states.



Bihar-11

Jharkhand- 6

Madhya Pradesh -9

Chhatisgarh- 9

Uttar Pradesh- 7

Uttrakhand – 16



Obviously its always easy to handle a small state rather than a large one. But for good governance, states required a good leader with good administrative capability and bill to rule the state towards development. As Bihar is not a small state, but still working better than Jharkhand.


The formation of Telangana was inevitable. The upcoming 2014 elections in Telangana, both parliamentary and assembly could just be the way for Congress.  It is now time to explore a Second Republic with numerous smaller states based on their economic sustainability.