Mountbatten used wife to influence Nehru on referring Kashmir to UN
17 July 2007The Daily Times
Lahore: The youngest daughter of Louis and Edwina Mountbatten says her mother and Indias first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru were very much in love, but it was a platonic affair and no sex was involved. Lady Pamela Hicks said in a television interview that Lord Mountbatten, British Indias last viceroy, did use her mother to influence Nehru into going to the UN on the Kashmir row with Pakistan. But Hicks insisted in her interview to Karan Thapar in CNN- IBNs Devils Advocate programme to be telecast on Sunday night that Nehru and Edwina never got physical. If you long to believe that (they had sex), then dont let me prevent you. But I dont believe it, she said. I believe just that they loved being together ... they might like to hold hands or to hug or something like that. (But) I dont believe, I really dont believe, because of the fact that my father was so often around and that there was not a hint of that. Hicks gave the interview to mark the publication of her book India Remembered about the 15 months she spent in the country from March 1947 to June 1948. Pressed that it would have been natural for a widower that Nehru was to be attracted sexually to a beautiful woman that Edwina was, Hicks said: It could be and maybe everybody will think Im being very naive but the fact she had had lovers in the past, somehow this was so different. It really was. My mother was so happy with Jawaharlal ... my father knew that it helped her because a woman can, after a long marriage, and they had had their silver wedding so theyd been over 25 years together, a woman can feel perhaps frustrated, and perhaps neglected ... and so if a new affection comes into her life, a new admiration, she blossoms and shes happy ... It made my mother, who could be quite difficult at times, as many very extraordinary women can be ... lovely to be with her. There were no prickles. She said that both she and her father, Lord Mountbatten, handled the Nehru-Edwina affair with tact. Asked how easy that was, she responded: We just had to go out of the room. Hicks admitted that Lord Mountbatten did use his mother to influence Nehrus thinking. But he certainly wasnt going to throw her, he didnt say to her go become the prime ministers lover because I need you to intercede. It was a by-product of this deep affection. I think it could have been my father, just in dry conversation might have been able to get his viewpoint over. But with my mother translating it for Panditji and making, you know, appealing to his heart more than his mind, that he should really behave like this, I think probably that did happen, she said.
Showing posts with label nehru. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nehru. Show all posts
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Lord Mountbatten "used" Edwina to influence Nehru on Kashmir
Lord Mountbatten "used" Edwina to influence Nehru on Kashmir
-->
July 18, 2007 New Delhi: Lord Mountbatten "used" his wife Edwina, who shared a "deep emotional love" with Jawaharlal Nehru, to influence India's first Prime Minister to refer the Kashmir issue to the United Nations, according to the last Viceroy's daughter."That is true and he did use her like that. But he certainly wasn't going to throw her, he didn't say to her go become the Prime Minister's lover because I need you to intercede. It was a by-product of this deep affection," Lady Pamela Hicks said in an interview to Karan Thapar in his programme 'Devil's Advocate' to be aired on CNN-IBN.She was replying to a query on whether Lord Mountbatten used the Edwina-Nehru relationship to influence him in the handling of the Kashmir issue.Hicks, who has recounted the relationship between Nehru and her mother in the book India Remembered: A Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power , said it was possible that Edwina's influence played a role in Nehru's decision to refer Kashmir to the UN."I think it could have been my father, just in dry conversation might have been able to get his viewpoint over. But with my mother translating it for Panditji and making, you know, appealing to his heart more than his mind, that he should really behave like this, I think probably that did happen," she said.This was in reply to a question on whether Nehru decided to refer Kashmir to the UN under Lord Mountbatten's advice and whether this was an area where Edwina's influence could have been particularly useful."Yes, I think so," Hicks said on whether her father had a bit of influence on Nehru through Edwina.Source: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=89644
-->
July 18, 2007 New Delhi: Lord Mountbatten "used" his wife Edwina, who shared a "deep emotional love" with Jawaharlal Nehru, to influence India's first Prime Minister to refer the Kashmir issue to the United Nations, according to the last Viceroy's daughter."That is true and he did use her like that. But he certainly wasn't going to throw her, he didn't say to her go become the Prime Minister's lover because I need you to intercede. It was a by-product of this deep affection," Lady Pamela Hicks said in an interview to Karan Thapar in his programme 'Devil's Advocate' to be aired on CNN-IBN.She was replying to a query on whether Lord Mountbatten used the Edwina-Nehru relationship to influence him in the handling of the Kashmir issue.Hicks, who has recounted the relationship between Nehru and her mother in the book India Remembered: A Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power , said it was possible that Edwina's influence played a role in Nehru's decision to refer Kashmir to the UN."I think it could have been my father, just in dry conversation might have been able to get his viewpoint over. But with my mother translating it for Panditji and making, you know, appealing to his heart more than his mind, that he should really behave like this, I think probably that did happen," she said.This was in reply to a question on whether Nehru decided to refer Kashmir to the UN under Lord Mountbatten's advice and whether this was an area where Edwina's influence could have been particularly useful."Yes, I think so," Hicks said on whether her father had a bit of influence on Nehru through Edwina.Source: http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=89644
Sgt. Major Gandhi
Note: The Indian Opinion was a newspaper established by Mohandas Gandhi in South Africa. He edited the paper and wrote much of its content for years, using it as a propaganda tool to promote his ideology.
Sgt. Major Gandhi
Gandhi was born to a Hindu family in 1869 in British-ruled Gujarat, India. In 1888 he went to study law at University College in London, England. After a short stint as an attorney in India, he was hired to work in Durban, South Africa as a legal adviser for a wealthy Indian merchant firm. He moved there in 1893. Prior to Gandhi’s arrival in South Africa, the black Zulu South Africans were in the middle of a nonviolent civil rights movement against their colonial British masters. They refused to pay taxes and often even to work. Surprisingly, to those unfamiliar with the real Gandhi, he refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of their movement, and actively campaigned against it.
He endorsed a British war on South African blacks, sought comfort and assistance for British troops, and pursued recruitment into the armed services. Eventually, he was appointed a Sgt. Major in the British Army. He then wrote propaganda about the war, and years later lied about the form of his involvement in his autobiography.
British Declare War on Blacks
In protest of a new poll-tax, Zulus confronted and killed two British tax collectors in 1906. In retaliation, the British declared war on the Zulus. They hung, shot, and severely flogged thousands of Zulus. Around four thousand Zulus were killed during the rebellion.
While the British took active measures to raise and equip an armed force for suppressing the blacks, Gandhi also began to prepare for the war against those he called “Kaffirs.”
Gandhi Endorses British War
For over six months Gandhi actively encouraged the British to raise an Indian regiment for use against the Zulus. Though considered an Apostle of Nonviolence, Gandhi eagerly pursued a chance for military service. His campaign began in late 1905, when he wrote “An Indian Volunteer Corps” for the Indian Opinion, saying, “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”
Gandhi expressed his frustration that the British had not yet raised an Indian regiment in his Mar. 17, 1906 “A Plea for Indian Volunteering.” He sounded almost desperate to participate in the war on blacks when he wrote: “The Natal Native trouble is dragging on a slow existence…. There is a population of over one hundred thousand Indians in Natal. It has been proved that they can do very efficient work in time of war…. Is it prudent for the Government to allow a source of strength, which always lies at its disposal, to run to waste?”
Gandhi Campaigns For Care Packages for British Troops
While the Zulus continued their war for freedom, Gandhi urged the Indian community to send money and care packages to the white militia fighting the black Zulus. In “The Natal Rebellion,” Feb. 2, 1906, he wrote: “The substance of it is that the Indians are not able to go to the battle-field, but that they can assist the men at the front with the requisite amenities.” In the same letter, he also urged Indians to help fund the war effort, saying, “It will be good to collect some money and send it to the Government or to some Fund that might have been started. We shall then be considered to have done our duty to that extent. We hope the leaders of the community will take up this matter.”
In his June 6, 1906 “Soldier’s Fund,” he glowingly wrote, “The Durban Women’s Association has started a special fund for the soldiers who have gone to the front to fight the Kaffirs. All leading men have contributed to the Fund and some Indian names are seen among the contributors. It is our advice that more Indians, traders and others, should subscribe to the Fund.” He also demanded that civilians send care packages to the soldiers. Strangely, the staunch Brahmanist Gandhi suggested these include tobacco, use of which is considered a sin in Hinduism. He wrote: “The soldiers’ life is a hard one…. Those, therefore, who do not go to the front should, in order to express their sympathy, raise a fund for the purpose of sending the soldiers fruits, tobacco, warm clothing and other things that they might need. It is our duty to subscribe to such a fund.”
Gandhi Seeks Recruitment Into British Armed Services
Gandhi finally managed to convince the British government to allow an Indian stretcher-bearer corps. He seemed a little disappointed at the non-combatant status of the corps, however, when in his May 12, 1906 “Indian Volunteering” he wrote: “The pity of it is that the Government…have not taken the elementary precaution of giving the necessary discipline and instruction to the Indians. It is, therefore, a matter of physical impossibility to expect Indians to do any work with the rifle; or, for that matter, to do any work in connection with war with much efficiency.”
Still bent on convincing the British to arm that corps, however, Gandhi spoke of an “amendment of the Fire-Arms Act” in his June 9, 1906 “Indians and the Native Unrest.” This amendment would “[provide] for the supply of arms to Indians…intended to give Indians an opportunity of taking their share in the defence of the Colony.”
He also displayed his selfish reasons for raising an Indian regiment, which had nothing to do with actually helping the British and completely ignored the just cause of the black Zulus. He wrote: “Indians have now a splendid opportunity for showing that they are capable of appreciating the duties of citizenship. At the same time, the fact of the corps being raised is nothing to be unduly proud of. Twenty Indians, or even two hundred, going to the front is a flea-bite. The Indian sacrifice will rightly be considered infinitesimal. But it is the principle involved which marks the importance of the event. The Government have, by accepting the offer, shown their goodwill. And if Indians come successfully through the ordeal, the possibilities for the future are very great. Should they be assigned a permanent part in the Militia, there will remain no ground for the European complaint that Europeans alone have to bear the brunt of Colonial defence, and Indians will cease to feel that, in not being allowed to participate in it, they are slighted.”
Gandhi Becomes a Sergeant Major
On June 6, 1906, in “Pledge of Allegiance,” Gandhi transcribed his oath: “We, the undersigned, solemnly and sincerely declare that we will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Edward the Seventh, His Heirs and Successors, and that we will faithfully serve in the supernumerary list of the Active Militia Force of the Colony of Natal as Stretcher-Bearers, until we shall lawfully cease to be members thereof, and the terms of the service are that we should each receive Rations, Uniform, Equipment and 1s. 6d. per day.”
It was official. Gandhi was appointed a Sgt. Major in the British Army, and would lead 20 Indian volunteers to assist the war against the black Zulus.
Gandhi Writes Propaganda for War on Blacks
As a last touch before heading to the battlefield, Gandhi published “Should Indians Volunteer Or Not?” on June 30, 1906, in the Indian Opinion. He passionately urged Indians to volunteer, saying: “There is hardly any family from which someone has not gone to fight the Kaffir rebels. Following their example, we should steel our hearts and take courage. Now is the time when the leading whites want us to take this step; if we let go this opportunity, we shall repent later. We therefore urge all Indian leaders to do their duty to the best of their ability.”
He made sure to downplay the dangers of going to war by inventing statistics regarding previous British wars. “The Crimean War,” he wrote, “caused heavy casualties; yet it has been estimated that fewer men died from bayonet or bullet wounds in that war than through sheer carelessness or perverse living. It was calculated that, on an average, more men died of fever and other diseases during the attack on Ladysmith than by Boer bullets. The experience in every war has been similar.”
Gandhi also advertised military service as physically and mentally beneficial, saying: “Those who can take care of themselves and lead regular lives while at the front can live in health and happiness. The training such men receive cannot be had elsewhere…. A man going to the battle-front has to train himself to endure severe hardships. He is obliged to cultivate the habit of living in comradeship with large numbers of men. He easily learns to make do with simple food. He is required to keep regular hours. He forms the habit of obeying his superior’s orders promptly and without argument.”
Completely ignoring the underlying cause of the Zulu rebellion, which was a desire for freedom, Gandhi argued for a religious reason to wage war on the black natives of South Africa. He said, “For the Indian community, going to the battle-field should be an easy matter; for, whether Muslims or Hindus, we are men with profound faith in God. We have a greater sense of duty, and it should therefore be easier for us to volunteer.”
Gandhi Lies About His Involvement in War on Blacks
Gandhi tried to rewrite his South African history in his 1920s autobiography. He wrote: “I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the ‘rebellion’ itself.” He also claimed, “My heart was with the Zulus.” Yet in 1906, he vehemently advocated Indians be allowed to “[take] their share in the defence of the Colony,” demanded the Indian community help fund the suppression of the Zulu rebellion, and cheered the chance to train for “actual warfare.”
His lying was even more blatant, however.
In his autobiography, Gandhi insists, “I was delighted, on reaching headquarters to hear that our main work was to be the nursing of the wounded Zulus.” He also wrote that “the work of my Corps consisted only in nursing the wounded Zulu.” Yet in “Fatigue Duties,” his final dispatch from the battlefield, Gandhi describes his duties:
“Early on the morning of the 27th, therefore, one-half of the Corps, with two stretchers under Sgt.-Major Gandhi and Sgt. Joshi proceeded to Otimati, where instructions were received to take a stretcher to carry one of the troopers who was dazed. Fortunately, the trooper had recovered before the party reached Thring’s Post. But by an unfortunate accident, another trooper, by name Forder, had received a bullet-wound in the thigh from a co-trooper. He, however, pluckily rode to the camp. The stretcher party had to assist Mr. Stokes, of the N. M. C., in treating the wounded trooper, and others, who had received slight injuries through accidents or otherwise, requiring medical help. On the 28th, the stretcher party at Otimati were to take to Mapumulo Private Sutton of the Durban Reserves, whose toe was crushed under a waggon wheel, and Trooper Forder. The latter had to be carried on a stretcher, as his wound was very delicate. The work of carrying Trooper Forder proved to be much heavier than we had thought. The energy of all the available men had to be taxed to the utmost in carrying the wounded men, especially as it meant going uphill all the way. As we were nearing Mapumulo, the Captain of our escort sent word that, if it could be managed, Forder should be placed in the ambulance waggon, as the Natives about the hill might wrongly consider that the rebels had succeeded in wounding at least one of our men. Trooper Forder, on hearing the message, gladly volunteered to go into the wagon. And the fatigued bearers were equally glad to be relieved of the necessity of having to carry their charge up the very steep hill near Mapumulo.”
Although years later Gandhi claimed his military work consisted “only” of nursing wounded blacks, his earlier writings tell a completely different story. His main work was caring for British troops wounded during the war against blacks.
Summary
The indisputable truth is that Gandhi chose to actively endorse and participate in a war waged solely to deprive black people of their liberties. At a time of extreme racial conflict, Gandhi knowingly sided with the oppressive white race. He even thirsted for Zulu blood, ruefully saying in July, 1906: “At about 12 o’clock we finished the day’s journey, with no Kaffirs to fight.”
Sgt. Major Gandhi
Gandhi was born to a Hindu family in 1869 in British-ruled Gujarat, India. In 1888 he went to study law at University College in London, England. After a short stint as an attorney in India, he was hired to work in Durban, South Africa as a legal adviser for a wealthy Indian merchant firm. He moved there in 1893. Prior to Gandhi’s arrival in South Africa, the black Zulu South Africans were in the middle of a nonviolent civil rights movement against their colonial British masters. They refused to pay taxes and often even to work. Surprisingly, to those unfamiliar with the real Gandhi, he refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of their movement, and actively campaigned against it.
He endorsed a British war on South African blacks, sought comfort and assistance for British troops, and pursued recruitment into the armed services. Eventually, he was appointed a Sgt. Major in the British Army. He then wrote propaganda about the war, and years later lied about the form of his involvement in his autobiography.
British Declare War on Blacks
In protest of a new poll-tax, Zulus confronted and killed two British tax collectors in 1906. In retaliation, the British declared war on the Zulus. They hung, shot, and severely flogged thousands of Zulus. Around four thousand Zulus were killed during the rebellion.
While the British took active measures to raise and equip an armed force for suppressing the blacks, Gandhi also began to prepare for the war against those he called “Kaffirs.”
Gandhi Endorses British War
For over six months Gandhi actively encouraged the British to raise an Indian regiment for use against the Zulus. Though considered an Apostle of Nonviolence, Gandhi eagerly pursued a chance for military service. His campaign began in late 1905, when he wrote “An Indian Volunteer Corps” for the Indian Opinion, saying, “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”
Gandhi expressed his frustration that the British had not yet raised an Indian regiment in his Mar. 17, 1906 “A Plea for Indian Volunteering.” He sounded almost desperate to participate in the war on blacks when he wrote: “The Natal Native trouble is dragging on a slow existence…. There is a population of over one hundred thousand Indians in Natal. It has been proved that they can do very efficient work in time of war…. Is it prudent for the Government to allow a source of strength, which always lies at its disposal, to run to waste?”
Gandhi Campaigns For Care Packages for British Troops
While the Zulus continued their war for freedom, Gandhi urged the Indian community to send money and care packages to the white militia fighting the black Zulus. In “The Natal Rebellion,” Feb. 2, 1906, he wrote: “The substance of it is that the Indians are not able to go to the battle-field, but that they can assist the men at the front with the requisite amenities.” In the same letter, he also urged Indians to help fund the war effort, saying, “It will be good to collect some money and send it to the Government or to some Fund that might have been started. We shall then be considered to have done our duty to that extent. We hope the leaders of the community will take up this matter.”
In his June 6, 1906 “Soldier’s Fund,” he glowingly wrote, “The Durban Women’s Association has started a special fund for the soldiers who have gone to the front to fight the Kaffirs. All leading men have contributed to the Fund and some Indian names are seen among the contributors. It is our advice that more Indians, traders and others, should subscribe to the Fund.” He also demanded that civilians send care packages to the soldiers. Strangely, the staunch Brahmanist Gandhi suggested these include tobacco, use of which is considered a sin in Hinduism. He wrote: “The soldiers’ life is a hard one…. Those, therefore, who do not go to the front should, in order to express their sympathy, raise a fund for the purpose of sending the soldiers fruits, tobacco, warm clothing and other things that they might need. It is our duty to subscribe to such a fund.”
Gandhi Seeks Recruitment Into British Armed Services
Gandhi finally managed to convince the British government to allow an Indian stretcher-bearer corps. He seemed a little disappointed at the non-combatant status of the corps, however, when in his May 12, 1906 “Indian Volunteering” he wrote: “The pity of it is that the Government…have not taken the elementary precaution of giving the necessary discipline and instruction to the Indians. It is, therefore, a matter of physical impossibility to expect Indians to do any work with the rifle; or, for that matter, to do any work in connection with war with much efficiency.”
Still bent on convincing the British to arm that corps, however, Gandhi spoke of an “amendment of the Fire-Arms Act” in his June 9, 1906 “Indians and the Native Unrest.” This amendment would “[provide] for the supply of arms to Indians…intended to give Indians an opportunity of taking their share in the defence of the Colony.”
He also displayed his selfish reasons for raising an Indian regiment, which had nothing to do with actually helping the British and completely ignored the just cause of the black Zulus. He wrote: “Indians have now a splendid opportunity for showing that they are capable of appreciating the duties of citizenship. At the same time, the fact of the corps being raised is nothing to be unduly proud of. Twenty Indians, or even two hundred, going to the front is a flea-bite. The Indian sacrifice will rightly be considered infinitesimal. But it is the principle involved which marks the importance of the event. The Government have, by accepting the offer, shown their goodwill. And if Indians come successfully through the ordeal, the possibilities for the future are very great. Should they be assigned a permanent part in the Militia, there will remain no ground for the European complaint that Europeans alone have to bear the brunt of Colonial defence, and Indians will cease to feel that, in not being allowed to participate in it, they are slighted.”
Gandhi Becomes a Sergeant Major
On June 6, 1906, in “Pledge of Allegiance,” Gandhi transcribed his oath: “We, the undersigned, solemnly and sincerely declare that we will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Edward the Seventh, His Heirs and Successors, and that we will faithfully serve in the supernumerary list of the Active Militia Force of the Colony of Natal as Stretcher-Bearers, until we shall lawfully cease to be members thereof, and the terms of the service are that we should each receive Rations, Uniform, Equipment and 1s. 6d. per day.”
It was official. Gandhi was appointed a Sgt. Major in the British Army, and would lead 20 Indian volunteers to assist the war against the black Zulus.
Gandhi Writes Propaganda for War on Blacks
As a last touch before heading to the battlefield, Gandhi published “Should Indians Volunteer Or Not?” on June 30, 1906, in the Indian Opinion. He passionately urged Indians to volunteer, saying: “There is hardly any family from which someone has not gone to fight the Kaffir rebels. Following their example, we should steel our hearts and take courage. Now is the time when the leading whites want us to take this step; if we let go this opportunity, we shall repent later. We therefore urge all Indian leaders to do their duty to the best of their ability.”
He made sure to downplay the dangers of going to war by inventing statistics regarding previous British wars. “The Crimean War,” he wrote, “caused heavy casualties; yet it has been estimated that fewer men died from bayonet or bullet wounds in that war than through sheer carelessness or perverse living. It was calculated that, on an average, more men died of fever and other diseases during the attack on Ladysmith than by Boer bullets. The experience in every war has been similar.”
Gandhi also advertised military service as physically and mentally beneficial, saying: “Those who can take care of themselves and lead regular lives while at the front can live in health and happiness. The training such men receive cannot be had elsewhere…. A man going to the battle-front has to train himself to endure severe hardships. He is obliged to cultivate the habit of living in comradeship with large numbers of men. He easily learns to make do with simple food. He is required to keep regular hours. He forms the habit of obeying his superior’s orders promptly and without argument.”
Completely ignoring the underlying cause of the Zulu rebellion, which was a desire for freedom, Gandhi argued for a religious reason to wage war on the black natives of South Africa. He said, “For the Indian community, going to the battle-field should be an easy matter; for, whether Muslims or Hindus, we are men with profound faith in God. We have a greater sense of duty, and it should therefore be easier for us to volunteer.”
Gandhi Lies About His Involvement in War on Blacks
Gandhi tried to rewrite his South African history in his 1920s autobiography. He wrote: “I bore no grudge against the Zulus, they had harmed no Indian. I had doubts about the ‘rebellion’ itself.” He also claimed, “My heart was with the Zulus.” Yet in 1906, he vehemently advocated Indians be allowed to “[take] their share in the defence of the Colony,” demanded the Indian community help fund the suppression of the Zulu rebellion, and cheered the chance to train for “actual warfare.”
His lying was even more blatant, however.
In his autobiography, Gandhi insists, “I was delighted, on reaching headquarters to hear that our main work was to be the nursing of the wounded Zulus.” He also wrote that “the work of my Corps consisted only in nursing the wounded Zulu.” Yet in “Fatigue Duties,” his final dispatch from the battlefield, Gandhi describes his duties:
“Early on the morning of the 27th, therefore, one-half of the Corps, with two stretchers under Sgt.-Major Gandhi and Sgt. Joshi proceeded to Otimati, where instructions were received to take a stretcher to carry one of the troopers who was dazed. Fortunately, the trooper had recovered before the party reached Thring’s Post. But by an unfortunate accident, another trooper, by name Forder, had received a bullet-wound in the thigh from a co-trooper. He, however, pluckily rode to the camp. The stretcher party had to assist Mr. Stokes, of the N. M. C., in treating the wounded trooper, and others, who had received slight injuries through accidents or otherwise, requiring medical help. On the 28th, the stretcher party at Otimati were to take to Mapumulo Private Sutton of the Durban Reserves, whose toe was crushed under a waggon wheel, and Trooper Forder. The latter had to be carried on a stretcher, as his wound was very delicate. The work of carrying Trooper Forder proved to be much heavier than we had thought. The energy of all the available men had to be taxed to the utmost in carrying the wounded men, especially as it meant going uphill all the way. As we were nearing Mapumulo, the Captain of our escort sent word that, if it could be managed, Forder should be placed in the ambulance waggon, as the Natives about the hill might wrongly consider that the rebels had succeeded in wounding at least one of our men. Trooper Forder, on hearing the message, gladly volunteered to go into the wagon. And the fatigued bearers were equally glad to be relieved of the necessity of having to carry their charge up the very steep hill near Mapumulo.”
Although years later Gandhi claimed his military work consisted “only” of nursing wounded blacks, his earlier writings tell a completely different story. His main work was caring for British troops wounded during the war against blacks.
Summary
The indisputable truth is that Gandhi chose to actively endorse and participate in a war waged solely to deprive black people of their liberties. At a time of extreme racial conflict, Gandhi knowingly sided with the oppressive white race. He even thirsted for Zulu blood, ruefully saying in July, 1906: “At about 12 o’clock we finished the day’s journey, with no Kaffirs to fight.”
INDIRA GANDHI STORY PART 1
extremely important blog
read it ,u will like a lot ( most of them i have picked up form various sites.so as to keep them collected in one place. dont make comments claiming me as plaigarist etc.all posts r non copyrighted.)
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
INDIRA GANDHI STORY PART 1
PLEASE READ THIS REAL STORY
A. Ghosh
M.O. Mathai's
"SHE"
Foreword:This article has a short but important history. It was written on June 23, 1977 by no less a person than M.O. Mathai. He was then Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru's private secretary. Mathai was an intelligent and competent man from south India, a Catholic by religion like many south Indians, and quite courageous to have written the two well-known books: (1) Reminiscences of the Nehru Age, and, (2) My Days with Nehru, where he has, for the first time, divulged many secrets of the high and the mighty of the Nehru years.However, the article that our readers are going to read, was not an ordinary article of a descriptive nature. It has many references to Mathai's personal interaction with Indira Gandhi (nee Nehru). The article was originally supposed to be a part of Mathai's book, 'Reminiscences of the Nehru Age' but for obvious reasons, at the last moment, it was left out of the book. I received a copy of the article, (which I am sharing with our readers), soon after its appearance in the form of an article by an unknown author but it does not take too much grey matter to guess who is writing and about whom. Our readers will judge. A great deal of what Mathai is telling us in these pages, are already known to intelligent, informed readers; however, these few pages are surely quite readable although the actors and actresses of the old drama are now gone, many with their past glory tarnished! It was to hide the tarnish that so much trouble had been taken to keep these few pages hidden from the general public, at the time. In India, the general public has always been and still is the outsider, never mind what the politicos say!
She has Cleopatra's nose, Pauline Bonaparte's eyes and the breasts of Venus. She has hair on her limbs which have to be shaven frequently. Physically and mentally she is more of a male than a female. I would call her a manly woman.I met her first in her ancestral home in the winter of 1945. She then had a baby son of crawling age and who was a cry baby. My first reaction was that she was a conceited girl with unhappiness written all over her face. Her second son, born in December, 1946, was an unwanted child. As a baby he had to be circumcised to remove a defect. By 1947 her cup of unhappiness was full and fortune took possession of her face.In the autumn of 1946 her father gave her a small Austin car. She wanted me to teach her driving. In the initial stages I used to take her to the Viceroy's bodyguard's Polo Ground for lessons. She was quick in learning. Then I stopped the driving lessons because she was getting into the advanced stage of pregnancy. I told her I didn't want her to take any risk going into the open roads learning driving. Her second son was born in the middle of December 1946. By the middle of February 1947 she was ready to resume driving lessons. We went into the roads and to Connaught Circus. Then I told her "you just imagine that you know everything, concentrate, consider the person driving a car from the opposite direction is a fool, and go along with confidence driving the car, take a round of Connaught Circus and come back". She did that and returned in triumph. The driving lessons ended there.Before the middle of 1947 she asked me to take her out to a cinema. From then on we used to go out for pictures as often as I was free - which was not frequent.
She looked forward to taking me out driving over the Ridge with the jungle on either side. She hated small cars. So we used to go in my car which was a Plymouth. She liked to go into the wilds where there were ruins. Drives to regions beyond Qutab Minar were favored. One day, during an aimless drive, she told me complainingly "You do not love me". I said "I do not know; I had not thought about it". By the autumn of 1947 I knew she had fallen headlong in love with me without my taking any initiative in the matter. Her face would light up on seeing me. She started talking to me about herself. She said that some time after her marriage, she discovered that her husband was not faithful to her. This came to her as a great shock because she married him in the teeth of opposition from every member of the family. She said she began to lose her saris, coats, blouses, shoes and handbags. She suspected the servants until she discovered some of her lost things on the persons of two women at a party. These women were known to be friendly with her husband. She also found out to which women her husband had given the books stolen from her book-shelves.She made it known rather discreetly what her intentions were about me. I told her I had two inhibitions: (1) I did not like to fool around with married women; (2) my loyalty to her father prohibited anything such as she had in mind. She was immediately forthcoming about No.1. She assured me that some time ago she had stopped having anything to do with her husband. She added: "I can no longer bear the thought of his touching me". She further confided in me "fortunately he has also gone impotent though he retained his attraction to women". About No. 2 she was angry with me and asked "What has my father got to do with it? Am I a minor?"
Since then she spent as much time with me as possible and ridiculed me for my attitude to her father in so far as she was concerned. But I continued to resist gently. I was not mentally prepared or reconciled as yet.On the 18th November 1947 she took me to her room and kissed me full on the lips and told me "I want to sleep with you; take me to the wilds tomorrow evening". I told her that I had very little experience with women. She said "all the better". So on the 19th, which was her birthday, we went driving out and chose a place in the wilderness. On our way back I told her that I had some revulsion about milk in her breasts (though she had stopped breast-feeding the child a while ago). Afterward, she did something about it and soon went completely dry. She discovered that I knew little about sex, and gave me two books, one of them by Dr. Abraham Stone about sex and female anatomy. I read them with profit.She was not promiscuous; neither did she need sex too frequently. But in the sex act she had all the artfulness of French women and Kerala Nair women combined. She loved prolonged kissing and being kissed in the same fashion. She had established a reputation of being cold and forbidding. She was nothing of the kind. It was only a pose as a feminine measure of self-protection. She was a passionate woman who was exceptionally good as a wriggler in bed. During the twelve years we were lovers, I was never satisfied with her.Progressively she became hostile to the fat female family friend who used to come to stay. Ever since she saw the family friend welcoming me on arrival with a hug and an innocent kiss on my cheek, she became jealous and livid with rage against the family friend. Occasionally the family friend used to ask me to take her and my "she" to a good cinema whenever there was one in town. My "she" could cleverly see to it that I did not sit near the family friend but only next to her as third in the row.
The day before the next time the family friend was expected to arrive "she" asked me to take her out into the wilds after sundown. In the car I asked her 'what is the big idea? I have some urgent work to do'. She replied 'as long as the fat one is here, I will keep away from you because I do not want you to touch me after she has touched you.' I assured her that I had absolutely no interest in the fat one. Eventually, 'she' got used to the fat one's friendly welcome and departure gestures to me.She tried hard to persuade me to occasionally go up to her room while her husband was there, sit down and talk to them both. I told her that I had no intention of practicing deception. So she used to bring him to my study occasionally.She used all kinds of devices to ensure that her children spent as little time with their father as possible. She told me that she did not want any influence of their father on them because she was convinced that his influence would be bad for them. She concluded by saying: "I do not want my children to grow up as champion liars." This was one of the reasons why her husband was shifted to a separate room.Once I mentioned to her something which her husband had told me. She said: "Don't believe a word of what he says. I have learnt it to my bitter cost".
She wrote to A.C.N. Nambiar, whom she had known personally for a long time and who was also a friend of her father and mother, asking for his opinion about divorcing her husband. She knew that Nambiar was a dear friend of mine. Nambiar replied to her to say that under certain circumstances it was preferable to have a clear break to living in make-believe. I did not encourage her in this matter, mostly for the sake of her father.One day, she told me that she could not bear the thought of being married to a Hindu. I told her "It is a compliment to the galaxy of great men Hinduism has produced through the ages".I never encouraged her to come to my bedroom. On one occasion she came. It was past midnight. I was fast asleep, having worked till midnight; she lay down beside me and gently woke me up by a kiss. I asked her "What is the matter?" She said: "I had to come". I did not know if she had been troubled in mind. I told her: "Let us lie here quietly and do nothing unless you want to". She said: "On this occasion, I only want to be with you". She lay there relaxed till about 4 in the morning, and gently tip-toed to her room upstairs. Before going away she told me: "I never told you that once I thought of committing suicide. Such thoughts do not come to me any more. You have given me back my happiness."
Once, early in our life of love, she told me, "I never knew what real sex was until I had you". At the height of her passion in bed, she would hold me tight and say "Oh, Bhupat, I love you". She loved to give and receive nick-names. She gave me the name of Bhupat the dacoit, and I promptly gave her the name of Putli, the dacoitess. In private we used to call each other by these names. About her protestations of love in her romantic excitement, I quoted to her once two passages from Byron's Don Juan:"Man's love is a man's life, a thing apart,It is a woman's whole existence.In her first passion woman loves her lover;In all others all she loves is love".She replied, "all right, I want you to tell me as often as possible, not in bed, that you love me". I tried my best to oblige her. In fact, there was no difficulty, for I had fallen deeply in love with her.One evening, I found her disturbed. When she saw me, she burst into tears. I asked her what had happened. She said that when she came from her dressing room to drink her usual glass of milk, she discovered that there was finely powdered glass in it. The powder was floating on the thick cream. At the first sip she immediately sensed it in her mouth and spat it out. She said that from her dressing room she heard her husband sneaking into her bedroom and making an exit. She controlled herself, put her arms round me and holding me tight, said: "Oh, Mackie, I love you; I am so glad you came up."
In the Constellation plans on our first visit abroad together, she was all excitement when we were in sight of Mont Blanc. She said softly to me, "I like the Queen Bee, I would like to make love high up in the air". I asked her:"Didn't you ever dream of soaring higher up like an eagle and surveying the world? I woke up from such a dream once and found myself on the floor, for I had fallen from the bed without breaking any bones". She knew I was pulling her leg. On reaching London, she found out the first free meal-time for her, and arranged for me to take her to a quiet restaurant. On reaching the restaurant, I asked her to order the food; I said I would have the same as hers with the addition of six large raw oysters on ice with appropriate sauce to begin with. She said she too would have it. The main dish she ordered was veal. She said "Ever since I arrived here, I have been dying to eat veal". I asked her if ever she had read Vatsayana's Kama Sutra. She said, "No, why?" I told her Vatsayana had prescribed veal for young couple for six months before marriage. She had not even read the Ramayana or the Mahabaharata. Her knowledge of the Ramayana was only what her grandmother had told her. In many ways, she was a denationalized person.
extremely important blog
read it ,u will like a lot ( most of them i have picked up form various sites.so as to keep them collected in one place. dont make comments claiming me as plaigarist etc.all posts r non copyrighted.)
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
INDIRA STORY PART2
She did not like artificial birth-control aids. Once in the early fifties she got pregnant by me. She decided to have an abortion done. She went to the British High Commission doctor whom she knew personally; but he refused to help. So she went to her ancestral home and got in touch with a lady doctor whom she knew personally and in whom she had perfect confidence. On this trip she took her second son with her. After a fortnight the mother and the little son returned with the good news that the boy was cured of his defect in speech in the natural process. Earlier he could not pronounce "R", and the mother was worried about it; she was in frantic search for a speech-correction expert. On the day of her return, she told me that the whole thing came out without any medication or aid.Was the father aware of her attachment to me? The answer is in the affirmative. Every time he had to go out for dinner, he knew where to find her. Fifteen minutes before the time of departure, she would come fully decked up and sit in front of me in my study. At the stroke of the appointed time the father would pass my study and call her out.
In the winter of 1958 I happened to see something by sheer chance. Immediately after lunch, I went to convey some urgent information to her. She had already closed the door. I knocked; after about five minutes she half-opened the door and peeped out. I discovered that the curtains were drawn and a tall, youngish handsome, bearded man - a Brahmacahri - was in the room. I came away saying "I had something to tell you; but I shall say it later". That was the end of our relationship. She tried to make me believe several times that the scene I witnessed meant nothing more than some "yoga" and "spiritual" lessons. I gave her the definite impression that I was not interested in her explanations. Gradually she grew bitter against me. In fact, ultimately she became my deadly enemy - which constantly reminded me of the famous couplet of William Congrave:"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned; nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."Within a fortnight of the incident I collected all her passionate letters and returned them to her. A year later I came across some more in my old papers. They were also returned to her.There is an erroneous belief among some that she and her husband came together during the last two years of the husband's life. Enough had happened in their lives that a reunion of hearts was not humanly possible. It is true that she was kind and considerate to him during his illness. Certain things were done during this period and more specially at the cremation and collection of the ashes of the husband and well advertised to give certain desired impressions. They were all for public consumption, for, by that time, she had emerged as a full-fledged political animal.
==================================================
Afterword:
A few clarifications, now that the readers had a look at the material presented by no less a person than M.O. Mathai himself on Indira (aka Maimuna Begum).Indira used to 'shave her limbs';
read that as 'her pubic hairs'. This is an Islamic practice forced today on the Afghan population by the Talibans in Afghanistan. There is nothing extraordinary in her statement that she would not like to get married to a Hindu man, although she used to have unauthorized sex with the Hindu 'brahmachari' in her own bed room.That her second son (the bastard son by Mohammad Yunus) Sanjay (aka Sanjiv) had circumcision is no secret now. Why blame an unknown and imagined 'defect'? It was done only to leave the seal of Islam, exactly as it had been done on Jawahar in the palace of the nawab of Oudh. Her inordinate love to eat veal can be tolerated but not the false explanation of circumcision. The entire Nehru family was of Islamic roots of unknown pedigree and they now plan to hand over the country today, to an ill-bred Catholic woman of unknown pedigree.That she had the abortion of her third baby, the one sired by Mathai, is not known by many. But the matter was hushed up by the excuse of 'speech-defect' of the baby son, Sanjiv (he was not name-changed to Sanjay as yet, after the car theft in London and to procure a separate Indian passport to evade the London police). Now we know that it is hard to pronounce the letter 'R'!That Firoz was a liar does not come to us a surprise! Didn't the school boys use to chant:"Gali gali men shor hai,Rajiv Gandhi chor hai?"And to think that no one had told them that the bastard son of Indira was the Bofors thief, which fact even any of the Indian leaders have not yet been able to decipher! And how could a fornication-prone thief like Firoz, hide the fact from a smart broad like Indira (aka Maimuna Begum), his own wife, for, it is widely accepted that Indira was indeed much smarter than Firoz.
That Indira had no or little knowledge of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, was suspected by many. Did she know anything at all of the Koran? She was after all invited by the Saudi king to attend the Hajj ceremony at Mecca which information was also suppressed by our foolish media persons. If Indira learnt the rudiments of the Ramayana from her grandmother, the question still remains, which one? Jawahar's mother or Kamla Nehru's (nee Kaul) mother! We happen to know the name of Jawahar's mother; it was Thussu which was changed later to Swarup Rani. None of us seem to know the name of Kamla Kaul's mother.The fact of Firoz's cremation is very interesting. It was done only to fool the Hindus of India. This Sunni musalman son of Nawab Khan, the liquor vendor of Allahabad, converted to Catholicism by Sonia's petulance at Orbassano, Italy, had died and been cremated like the kafir Hindus but was not buried in accordance with the tenets of Islam. Then what happened to him? Did he go to the Jannat at all? Did he have the 72 houries and the 28 gilmans (pearl-like boys)? No one tells us that! It is amazing that the Indian media is headed by a bunch of idiots and that situation needs to be corrected as early as possible.
I am sure that the short write up by Mathai has done a world of good for our readers and eventually the larger public in India. Rest assured, all India is now reading our web-site and discovering the truth for the first time. The truth will surely eventually come out in full, for all to know and eventually they will all act as true sons of the soil. At the moment, our India is chock a block with traitors, starting from the President, Michael Kocheril Raman Narayanan to Gujral, Kuldip Nayyar, Shabana Azmi, Javed Akhtar, Dilip Kumar, Mani Shankar Aiyar, K. Natwar Singh, retired ambassador Abid Husain, Mukarram Husain et al and a host of others!And a thought about Firoz's attempt to poison his own wife! Was it the same incident that had prompted Indira to poison Lal Bahadur Shastri at Tashkent? Who knows?
read it ,u will like a lot ( most of them i have picked up form various sites.so as to keep them collected in one place. dont make comments claiming me as plaigarist etc.all posts r non copyrighted.)
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
INDIRA GANDHI STORY PART 1
PLEASE READ THIS REAL STORY
A. Ghosh
M.O. Mathai's
"SHE"
Foreword:This article has a short but important history. It was written on June 23, 1977 by no less a person than M.O. Mathai. He was then Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru's private secretary. Mathai was an intelligent and competent man from south India, a Catholic by religion like many south Indians, and quite courageous to have written the two well-known books: (1) Reminiscences of the Nehru Age, and, (2) My Days with Nehru, where he has, for the first time, divulged many secrets of the high and the mighty of the Nehru years.However, the article that our readers are going to read, was not an ordinary article of a descriptive nature. It has many references to Mathai's personal interaction with Indira Gandhi (nee Nehru). The article was originally supposed to be a part of Mathai's book, 'Reminiscences of the Nehru Age' but for obvious reasons, at the last moment, it was left out of the book. I received a copy of the article, (which I am sharing with our readers), soon after its appearance in the form of an article by an unknown author but it does not take too much grey matter to guess who is writing and about whom. Our readers will judge. A great deal of what Mathai is telling us in these pages, are already known to intelligent, informed readers; however, these few pages are surely quite readable although the actors and actresses of the old drama are now gone, many with their past glory tarnished! It was to hide the tarnish that so much trouble had been taken to keep these few pages hidden from the general public, at the time. In India, the general public has always been and still is the outsider, never mind what the politicos say!
She has Cleopatra's nose, Pauline Bonaparte's eyes and the breasts of Venus. She has hair on her limbs which have to be shaven frequently. Physically and mentally she is more of a male than a female. I would call her a manly woman.I met her first in her ancestral home in the winter of 1945. She then had a baby son of crawling age and who was a cry baby. My first reaction was that she was a conceited girl with unhappiness written all over her face. Her second son, born in December, 1946, was an unwanted child. As a baby he had to be circumcised to remove a defect. By 1947 her cup of unhappiness was full and fortune took possession of her face.In the autumn of 1946 her father gave her a small Austin car. She wanted me to teach her driving. In the initial stages I used to take her to the Viceroy's bodyguard's Polo Ground for lessons. She was quick in learning. Then I stopped the driving lessons because she was getting into the advanced stage of pregnancy. I told her I didn't want her to take any risk going into the open roads learning driving. Her second son was born in the middle of December 1946. By the middle of February 1947 she was ready to resume driving lessons. We went into the roads and to Connaught Circus. Then I told her "you just imagine that you know everything, concentrate, consider the person driving a car from the opposite direction is a fool, and go along with confidence driving the car, take a round of Connaught Circus and come back". She did that and returned in triumph. The driving lessons ended there.Before the middle of 1947 she asked me to take her out to a cinema. From then on we used to go out for pictures as often as I was free - which was not frequent.
She looked forward to taking me out driving over the Ridge with the jungle on either side. She hated small cars. So we used to go in my car which was a Plymouth. She liked to go into the wilds where there were ruins. Drives to regions beyond Qutab Minar were favored. One day, during an aimless drive, she told me complainingly "You do not love me". I said "I do not know; I had not thought about it". By the autumn of 1947 I knew she had fallen headlong in love with me without my taking any initiative in the matter. Her face would light up on seeing me. She started talking to me about herself. She said that some time after her marriage, she discovered that her husband was not faithful to her. This came to her as a great shock because she married him in the teeth of opposition from every member of the family. She said she began to lose her saris, coats, blouses, shoes and handbags. She suspected the servants until she discovered some of her lost things on the persons of two women at a party. These women were known to be friendly with her husband. She also found out to which women her husband had given the books stolen from her book-shelves.She made it known rather discreetly what her intentions were about me. I told her I had two inhibitions: (1) I did not like to fool around with married women; (2) my loyalty to her father prohibited anything such as she had in mind. She was immediately forthcoming about No.1. She assured me that some time ago she had stopped having anything to do with her husband. She added: "I can no longer bear the thought of his touching me". She further confided in me "fortunately he has also gone impotent though he retained his attraction to women". About No. 2 she was angry with me and asked "What has my father got to do with it? Am I a minor?"
Since then she spent as much time with me as possible and ridiculed me for my attitude to her father in so far as she was concerned. But I continued to resist gently. I was not mentally prepared or reconciled as yet.On the 18th November 1947 she took me to her room and kissed me full on the lips and told me "I want to sleep with you; take me to the wilds tomorrow evening". I told her that I had very little experience with women. She said "all the better". So on the 19th, which was her birthday, we went driving out and chose a place in the wilderness. On our way back I told her that I had some revulsion about milk in her breasts (though she had stopped breast-feeding the child a while ago). Afterward, she did something about it and soon went completely dry. She discovered that I knew little about sex, and gave me two books, one of them by Dr. Abraham Stone about sex and female anatomy. I read them with profit.She was not promiscuous; neither did she need sex too frequently. But in the sex act she had all the artfulness of French women and Kerala Nair women combined. She loved prolonged kissing and being kissed in the same fashion. She had established a reputation of being cold and forbidding. She was nothing of the kind. It was only a pose as a feminine measure of self-protection. She was a passionate woman who was exceptionally good as a wriggler in bed. During the twelve years we were lovers, I was never satisfied with her.Progressively she became hostile to the fat female family friend who used to come to stay. Ever since she saw the family friend welcoming me on arrival with a hug and an innocent kiss on my cheek, she became jealous and livid with rage against the family friend. Occasionally the family friend used to ask me to take her and my "she" to a good cinema whenever there was one in town. My "she" could cleverly see to it that I did not sit near the family friend but only next to her as third in the row.
The day before the next time the family friend was expected to arrive "she" asked me to take her out into the wilds after sundown. In the car I asked her 'what is the big idea? I have some urgent work to do'. She replied 'as long as the fat one is here, I will keep away from you because I do not want you to touch me after she has touched you.' I assured her that I had absolutely no interest in the fat one. Eventually, 'she' got used to the fat one's friendly welcome and departure gestures to me.She tried hard to persuade me to occasionally go up to her room while her husband was there, sit down and talk to them both. I told her that I had no intention of practicing deception. So she used to bring him to my study occasionally.She used all kinds of devices to ensure that her children spent as little time with their father as possible. She told me that she did not want any influence of their father on them because she was convinced that his influence would be bad for them. She concluded by saying: "I do not want my children to grow up as champion liars." This was one of the reasons why her husband was shifted to a separate room.Once I mentioned to her something which her husband had told me. She said: "Don't believe a word of what he says. I have learnt it to my bitter cost".
She wrote to A.C.N. Nambiar, whom she had known personally for a long time and who was also a friend of her father and mother, asking for his opinion about divorcing her husband. She knew that Nambiar was a dear friend of mine. Nambiar replied to her to say that under certain circumstances it was preferable to have a clear break to living in make-believe. I did not encourage her in this matter, mostly for the sake of her father.One day, she told me that she could not bear the thought of being married to a Hindu. I told her "It is a compliment to the galaxy of great men Hinduism has produced through the ages".I never encouraged her to come to my bedroom. On one occasion she came. It was past midnight. I was fast asleep, having worked till midnight; she lay down beside me and gently woke me up by a kiss. I asked her "What is the matter?" She said: "I had to come". I did not know if she had been troubled in mind. I told her: "Let us lie here quietly and do nothing unless you want to". She said: "On this occasion, I only want to be with you". She lay there relaxed till about 4 in the morning, and gently tip-toed to her room upstairs. Before going away she told me: "I never told you that once I thought of committing suicide. Such thoughts do not come to me any more. You have given me back my happiness."
Once, early in our life of love, she told me, "I never knew what real sex was until I had you". At the height of her passion in bed, she would hold me tight and say "Oh, Bhupat, I love you". She loved to give and receive nick-names. She gave me the name of Bhupat the dacoit, and I promptly gave her the name of Putli, the dacoitess. In private we used to call each other by these names. About her protestations of love in her romantic excitement, I quoted to her once two passages from Byron's Don Juan:"Man's love is a man's life, a thing apart,It is a woman's whole existence.In her first passion woman loves her lover;In all others all she loves is love".She replied, "all right, I want you to tell me as often as possible, not in bed, that you love me". I tried my best to oblige her. In fact, there was no difficulty, for I had fallen deeply in love with her.One evening, I found her disturbed. When she saw me, she burst into tears. I asked her what had happened. She said that when she came from her dressing room to drink her usual glass of milk, she discovered that there was finely powdered glass in it. The powder was floating on the thick cream. At the first sip she immediately sensed it in her mouth and spat it out. She said that from her dressing room she heard her husband sneaking into her bedroom and making an exit. She controlled herself, put her arms round me and holding me tight, said: "Oh, Mackie, I love you; I am so glad you came up."
In the Constellation plans on our first visit abroad together, she was all excitement when we were in sight of Mont Blanc. She said softly to me, "I like the Queen Bee, I would like to make love high up in the air". I asked her:"Didn't you ever dream of soaring higher up like an eagle and surveying the world? I woke up from such a dream once and found myself on the floor, for I had fallen from the bed without breaking any bones". She knew I was pulling her leg. On reaching London, she found out the first free meal-time for her, and arranged for me to take her to a quiet restaurant. On reaching the restaurant, I asked her to order the food; I said I would have the same as hers with the addition of six large raw oysters on ice with appropriate sauce to begin with. She said she too would have it. The main dish she ordered was veal. She said "Ever since I arrived here, I have been dying to eat veal". I asked her if ever she had read Vatsayana's Kama Sutra. She said, "No, why?" I told her Vatsayana had prescribed veal for young couple for six months before marriage. She had not even read the Ramayana or the Mahabaharata. Her knowledge of the Ramayana was only what her grandmother had told her. In many ways, she was a denationalized person.
extremely important blog
read it ,u will like a lot ( most of them i have picked up form various sites.so as to keep them collected in one place. dont make comments claiming me as plaigarist etc.all posts r non copyrighted.)
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
INDIRA STORY PART2
She did not like artificial birth-control aids. Once in the early fifties she got pregnant by me. She decided to have an abortion done. She went to the British High Commission doctor whom she knew personally; but he refused to help. So she went to her ancestral home and got in touch with a lady doctor whom she knew personally and in whom she had perfect confidence. On this trip she took her second son with her. After a fortnight the mother and the little son returned with the good news that the boy was cured of his defect in speech in the natural process. Earlier he could not pronounce "R", and the mother was worried about it; she was in frantic search for a speech-correction expert. On the day of her return, she told me that the whole thing came out without any medication or aid.Was the father aware of her attachment to me? The answer is in the affirmative. Every time he had to go out for dinner, he knew where to find her. Fifteen minutes before the time of departure, she would come fully decked up and sit in front of me in my study. At the stroke of the appointed time the father would pass my study and call her out.
In the winter of 1958 I happened to see something by sheer chance. Immediately after lunch, I went to convey some urgent information to her. She had already closed the door. I knocked; after about five minutes she half-opened the door and peeped out. I discovered that the curtains were drawn and a tall, youngish handsome, bearded man - a Brahmacahri - was in the room. I came away saying "I had something to tell you; but I shall say it later". That was the end of our relationship. She tried to make me believe several times that the scene I witnessed meant nothing more than some "yoga" and "spiritual" lessons. I gave her the definite impression that I was not interested in her explanations. Gradually she grew bitter against me. In fact, ultimately she became my deadly enemy - which constantly reminded me of the famous couplet of William Congrave:"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned; nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."Within a fortnight of the incident I collected all her passionate letters and returned them to her. A year later I came across some more in my old papers. They were also returned to her.There is an erroneous belief among some that she and her husband came together during the last two years of the husband's life. Enough had happened in their lives that a reunion of hearts was not humanly possible. It is true that she was kind and considerate to him during his illness. Certain things were done during this period and more specially at the cremation and collection of the ashes of the husband and well advertised to give certain desired impressions. They were all for public consumption, for, by that time, she had emerged as a full-fledged political animal.
==================================================
Afterword:
A few clarifications, now that the readers had a look at the material presented by no less a person than M.O. Mathai himself on Indira (aka Maimuna Begum).Indira used to 'shave her limbs';
read that as 'her pubic hairs'. This is an Islamic practice forced today on the Afghan population by the Talibans in Afghanistan. There is nothing extraordinary in her statement that she would not like to get married to a Hindu man, although she used to have unauthorized sex with the Hindu 'brahmachari' in her own bed room.That her second son (the bastard son by Mohammad Yunus) Sanjay (aka Sanjiv) had circumcision is no secret now. Why blame an unknown and imagined 'defect'? It was done only to leave the seal of Islam, exactly as it had been done on Jawahar in the palace of the nawab of Oudh. Her inordinate love to eat veal can be tolerated but not the false explanation of circumcision. The entire Nehru family was of Islamic roots of unknown pedigree and they now plan to hand over the country today, to an ill-bred Catholic woman of unknown pedigree.That she had the abortion of her third baby, the one sired by Mathai, is not known by many. But the matter was hushed up by the excuse of 'speech-defect' of the baby son, Sanjiv (he was not name-changed to Sanjay as yet, after the car theft in London and to procure a separate Indian passport to evade the London police). Now we know that it is hard to pronounce the letter 'R'!That Firoz was a liar does not come to us a surprise! Didn't the school boys use to chant:"Gali gali men shor hai,Rajiv Gandhi chor hai?"And to think that no one had told them that the bastard son of Indira was the Bofors thief, which fact even any of the Indian leaders have not yet been able to decipher! And how could a fornication-prone thief like Firoz, hide the fact from a smart broad like Indira (aka Maimuna Begum), his own wife, for, it is widely accepted that Indira was indeed much smarter than Firoz.
That Indira had no or little knowledge of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, was suspected by many. Did she know anything at all of the Koran? She was after all invited by the Saudi king to attend the Hajj ceremony at Mecca which information was also suppressed by our foolish media persons. If Indira learnt the rudiments of the Ramayana from her grandmother, the question still remains, which one? Jawahar's mother or Kamla Nehru's (nee Kaul) mother! We happen to know the name of Jawahar's mother; it was Thussu which was changed later to Swarup Rani. None of us seem to know the name of Kamla Kaul's mother.The fact of Firoz's cremation is very interesting. It was done only to fool the Hindus of India. This Sunni musalman son of Nawab Khan, the liquor vendor of Allahabad, converted to Catholicism by Sonia's petulance at Orbassano, Italy, had died and been cremated like the kafir Hindus but was not buried in accordance with the tenets of Islam. Then what happened to him? Did he go to the Jannat at all? Did he have the 72 houries and the 28 gilmans (pearl-like boys)? No one tells us that! It is amazing that the Indian media is headed by a bunch of idiots and that situation needs to be corrected as early as possible.
I am sure that the short write up by Mathai has done a world of good for our readers and eventually the larger public in India. Rest assured, all India is now reading our web-site and discovering the truth for the first time. The truth will surely eventually come out in full, for all to know and eventually they will all act as true sons of the soil. At the moment, our India is chock a block with traitors, starting from the President, Michael Kocheril Raman Narayanan to Gujral, Kuldip Nayyar, Shabana Azmi, Javed Akhtar, Dilip Kumar, Mani Shankar Aiyar, K. Natwar Singh, retired ambassador Abid Husain, Mukarram Husain et al and a host of others!And a thought about Firoz's attempt to poison his own wife! Was it the same incident that had prompted Indira to poison Lal Bahadur Shastri at Tashkent? Who knows?
indian history secrets
Rewriting Indian Historyby Francois Gautier
New Delhi: Vikas Publishing 1996xiv + 176 pages; ISBN 0-7069-9976-2
Reviewed by C.J.S. Wallia
========================="From my perspecive as a secularhumanist, and my own experience, I regard a typical liberal Indian Muslim to be as good a human being as any other Indian." c.j.s. wallia=========================
Rewriting Indian History is a provocative new book by the French writer Francois Gautier, who currently serves as the political correspondent in India for France's top newspaper, Le Figaro, and for Switzerland's leading daily, Le Nouveau Quotidien. Having lived in India for 25 years has helped him "to see through the usual cliches and prejudices in India to which I subscribed for a long time, as most foreign (and sometimes, unfortunately, Indian) journalists, writers, and historians do."
Rewriting Indian History,the author prefaces, "might well be called an antithesis" for it questions many of the assumptions in the "standard" treatises by Euro-centered colonialist historians and their imitations by Indian Marxist writers.
Gautier focuses mainly on the Muslim period of India 's history. "Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."
However, the British, in pursuing their policy of divide-and-rule, colluded "to whitewash" the atrocious record of the Muslims so that they could set up the Muslims as a strategic counterbalance to the Hindus. During the freedom struggle, Gandhi and Nehru went around encrusting even thicker coats of whitewash so that they could pretend a facade of Hindu-Muslim unity against British colonial rule. After independence, Marxist Indian writers, blinkered by their distorting ideology, repeated the big lie about the Muslim record.
Gautier cites two eminent historians who wrote free of any colonialist or ideological agendas, basing their accounts on documents by contemporary Muslim chroniclers themselves: Alain Danielou in Histoire de la Inde: "From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoilations, destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilisations, wiped out entire races." And the well-known American historian Will Durant in The Story of Civilization: "...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within." (From my perspecive as a secular humanist, and my own experience, I regard a typical liberal Indian Muslim to be as good a human being as any other Indian.)
Gautier should have continued with the Will Durant quote: "The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India's boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in. For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came. This is the secret of the political history of modern India . Weakened by division, it succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life. The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry."
About Gandhi's whitewash of Muslims, Gautier observes: "Ultimately, it must be said that whatever his saintliness, his extreme and somehow rigid asceticism, Gandhi did enormous harm to India ... The British must have rubbed their hands in glee: here was a man who was perfecting their policy of divide-and-rule, for ultimately no one contributed more to the partition of India , by his obsession to always give in to the Muslims; by his indulgence of Jinnah, going as far as proposing to make him the prime minister of India ."
Worse yet, Gandhi's anointed disciple, Nehru, propagated false readings of Indian history in his books and speeches. Gautier quotes Nehru's "amazing eulogy" of the tyrant Mahmud Ghazni, the destroyer of Mathura 's great Hindu temples, Gujarat 's Somnath, and numerous other Hindu and Buddhist temples. When Nehru, the arrant appeaser of Muslims, became India 's first prime minister, he appointed a fundamentalist Muslim, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, as the first education minister. Under Nehru's pseudo-secular rule, "Hindu-bashing became a popular pastime." Moreover, Nehru "had a great sympathy for communism.... He encouraged Marxist think-tanks such as the Jawaharlal Nehru University [JNU] in New Delhi , which has bred a lot of 'Hindu-hating scholars' who are adept at negating Muslim atrocities and running to the ground the greatness of Hinduism and its institutions." These Marxist "historians," well-ensconced at JNU, have long been masterminding the politically correct textbooks of India 's history used in Indian schools. No wonder, JNU is also known as "the Kremlin by the Jumna ." For a long time, the Indian Marxists had been so brainwashed that whenever it rained in Moscow -- the capital of their "only true fatherland"-- they opened their umbrellas in Delhi .
To be sure, dissenting voices were raised against Gandhi's whitewash of Muslims. Before the partition of India , Aurobindo Ghosh, the great Hindu poet-philosopher, posed the question about Islam: "You can live with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live with a religion whose principle is 'I will not tolerate you'? How are you going to have unity with these people?... I am sorry they [Gandhi and Nehru] are making a fetish of Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus will have to fight Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of Hindus. Each time the mildness of the Hindus has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organise themselves and Hindu-Muslim unity will take care of itself, it will automatically solve the problem. ...I see no reason why the greatness of India 's past or its spirituality should be thrown into the waste basket, in order to conciliate the Muslims who would not be conciliated by such policy." Another strong dissenter was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Seeing through Nehru's pseudo-secularism, Patel commented, "There's only one nationalist Muslim in India : Jawarharlal Nehru."
Gautier warns: "Even today, there is no doubt that Islam has never been fully able to give up its inner conviction that its own religion is the only true creed and that all others are kafirs, infidels. In India it was true 300 years ago, and it is still true today. Remember the cry of the militants in Kashmir to the Pandits: 'convert to Islam or die!' ... The Hindu-Muslim question is just plainly a Muslim obsession, their hatred of the Hindu pagans, their contempt for this polytheist religion. This obsession, this hate, is as old as the first invasion of India by the original Arabs in 650 AD. After independence, nothing has changed: the sword of Allah is still as much ready to strike the kafirs, the idolaters of many gods."
The source of Muslim's fanatical aggression, Gautier points out, is the Koran itself, from which he quotes: "Slay the infidels, wherever ye find them and prepare them for all kind of ambush"; and "Choose not thy friends among the infidels till they forsake their homes and the way of idolatory. If they return to paganism then take them whenever you find them and kill them."
In the section on Ayodhya, Gautier says that demolishing the Babri Masjid has proved that Hindus too can fight. He criticizes Nehruvian "secularism" as interpreted by the Congress party to mean "giving in to the Muslims' demands, because its leaders never could really make out if the allegiance of Indian Muslims is first to India and then to Islam or vice-versa." For many of India 's Hindu journalists, this pseudo-secularism has meant "spitting on their own religion and brothers." Curiously, Gautier does not mention Arun Shourie's well-researched, lucidly articulated columns, which, in recent years, have laid bare the pretentions of Nehruvian pseudo-secularism.
From my own perspective as a secular humanist, I believe that any whitewashing of historical record is counterproductive. No matter how lofty the ideals of a current cause, any whitewash of history tempts the fates. To forget history will always be fateful; to forgive its horrendous facts can be redemptive. Forgive -- but never forget -- history. A salient example of making sure that the horrors of history are not forgotten is the contemporary German state's law prohibiting any World War II history that whitewashes the holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis on the Jews, Gypsies, and Poles. The Jews rightly insist that the world must never forget what happened to them. Where is the Hindu Holocaust Museum ?
The historical record of the Muslim rule in India is soaked in blood -- just take a look at the documents left by contemporary Muslim chroniclers. Yet, as a secular humanist, I would like to make a distinction between an ideology and its adherents, especially those born into it. From my own experience, I regard a typical liberal Indian Muslim to be as good a human being as any other Indian.
In the opening chapter, Gautier briefly examines the "tainted glasses" which made Euro-centered historians expound gross "disinformations" about ancient India : the discredited Aryan invasion theory; the deliberate mistranslations of the Vedas; and the erroneous theory of the origin of the caste system.
Throughout the book, Gautier quotes Sri Aurobindo, and in the concluding chapter, "The Final Dream," pays an inspired homage to the great visionary's writings.
Like Konraad Elst's Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, Francois Gautier's Rewriting Indian History contributes to the growing literature of dissent against the "standard" textbooks of India 's history.
New Delhi: Vikas Publishing 1996xiv + 176 pages; ISBN 0-7069-9976-2
Reviewed by C.J.S. Wallia
========================="From my perspecive as a secularhumanist, and my own experience, I regard a typical liberal Indian Muslim to be as good a human being as any other Indian." c.j.s. wallia=========================
Rewriting Indian History is a provocative new book by the French writer Francois Gautier, who currently serves as the political correspondent in India for France's top newspaper, Le Figaro, and for Switzerland's leading daily, Le Nouveau Quotidien. Having lived in India for 25 years has helped him "to see through the usual cliches and prejudices in India to which I subscribed for a long time, as most foreign (and sometimes, unfortunately, Indian) journalists, writers, and historians do."
Rewriting Indian History,the author prefaces, "might well be called an antithesis" for it questions many of the assumptions in the "standard" treatises by Euro-centered colonialist historians and their imitations by Indian Marxist writers.
Gautier focuses mainly on the Muslim period of India 's history. "Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese."
However, the British, in pursuing their policy of divide-and-rule, colluded "to whitewash" the atrocious record of the Muslims so that they could set up the Muslims as a strategic counterbalance to the Hindus. During the freedom struggle, Gandhi and Nehru went around encrusting even thicker coats of whitewash so that they could pretend a facade of Hindu-Muslim unity against British colonial rule. After independence, Marxist Indian writers, blinkered by their distorting ideology, repeated the big lie about the Muslim record.
Gautier cites two eminent historians who wrote free of any colonialist or ideological agendas, basing their accounts on documents by contemporary Muslim chroniclers themselves: Alain Danielou in Histoire de la Inde: "From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoilations, destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilisations, wiped out entire races." And the well-known American historian Will Durant in The Story of Civilization: "...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within." (From my perspecive as a secular humanist, and my own experience, I regard a typical liberal Indian Muslim to be as good a human being as any other Indian.)
Gautier should have continued with the Will Durant quote: "The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India's boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in. For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came. This is the secret of the political history of modern India . Weakened by division, it succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life. The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry."
About Gandhi's whitewash of Muslims, Gautier observes: "Ultimately, it must be said that whatever his saintliness, his extreme and somehow rigid asceticism, Gandhi did enormous harm to India ... The British must have rubbed their hands in glee: here was a man who was perfecting their policy of divide-and-rule, for ultimately no one contributed more to the partition of India , by his obsession to always give in to the Muslims; by his indulgence of Jinnah, going as far as proposing to make him the prime minister of India ."
Worse yet, Gandhi's anointed disciple, Nehru, propagated false readings of Indian history in his books and speeches. Gautier quotes Nehru's "amazing eulogy" of the tyrant Mahmud Ghazni, the destroyer of Mathura 's great Hindu temples, Gujarat 's Somnath, and numerous other Hindu and Buddhist temples. When Nehru, the arrant appeaser of Muslims, became India 's first prime minister, he appointed a fundamentalist Muslim, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, as the first education minister. Under Nehru's pseudo-secular rule, "Hindu-bashing became a popular pastime." Moreover, Nehru "had a great sympathy for communism.... He encouraged Marxist think-tanks such as the Jawaharlal Nehru University [JNU] in New Delhi , which has bred a lot of 'Hindu-hating scholars' who are adept at negating Muslim atrocities and running to the ground the greatness of Hinduism and its institutions." These Marxist "historians," well-ensconced at JNU, have long been masterminding the politically correct textbooks of India 's history used in Indian schools. No wonder, JNU is also known as "the Kremlin by the Jumna ." For a long time, the Indian Marxists had been so brainwashed that whenever it rained in Moscow -- the capital of their "only true fatherland"-- they opened their umbrellas in Delhi .
To be sure, dissenting voices were raised against Gandhi's whitewash of Muslims. Before the partition of India , Aurobindo Ghosh, the great Hindu poet-philosopher, posed the question about Islam: "You can live with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live with a religion whose principle is 'I will not tolerate you'? How are you going to have unity with these people?... I am sorry they [Gandhi and Nehru] are making a fetish of Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus will have to fight Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu-Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of Hindus. Each time the mildness of the Hindus has given way. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organise themselves and Hindu-Muslim unity will take care of itself, it will automatically solve the problem. ...I see no reason why the greatness of India 's past or its spirituality should be thrown into the waste basket, in order to conciliate the Muslims who would not be conciliated by such policy." Another strong dissenter was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Seeing through Nehru's pseudo-secularism, Patel commented, "There's only one nationalist Muslim in India : Jawarharlal Nehru."
Gautier warns: "Even today, there is no doubt that Islam has never been fully able to give up its inner conviction that its own religion is the only true creed and that all others are kafirs, infidels. In India it was true 300 years ago, and it is still true today. Remember the cry of the militants in Kashmir to the Pandits: 'convert to Islam or die!' ... The Hindu-Muslim question is just plainly a Muslim obsession, their hatred of the Hindu pagans, their contempt for this polytheist religion. This obsession, this hate, is as old as the first invasion of India by the original Arabs in 650 AD. After independence, nothing has changed: the sword of Allah is still as much ready to strike the kafirs, the idolaters of many gods."
The source of Muslim's fanatical aggression, Gautier points out, is the Koran itself, from which he quotes: "Slay the infidels, wherever ye find them and prepare them for all kind of ambush"; and "Choose not thy friends among the infidels till they forsake their homes and the way of idolatory. If they return to paganism then take them whenever you find them and kill them."
In the section on Ayodhya, Gautier says that demolishing the Babri Masjid has proved that Hindus too can fight. He criticizes Nehruvian "secularism" as interpreted by the Congress party to mean "giving in to the Muslims' demands, because its leaders never could really make out if the allegiance of Indian Muslims is first to India and then to Islam or vice-versa." For many of India 's Hindu journalists, this pseudo-secularism has meant "spitting on their own religion and brothers." Curiously, Gautier does not mention Arun Shourie's well-researched, lucidly articulated columns, which, in recent years, have laid bare the pretentions of Nehruvian pseudo-secularism.
From my own perspective as a secular humanist, I believe that any whitewashing of historical record is counterproductive. No matter how lofty the ideals of a current cause, any whitewash of history tempts the fates. To forget history will always be fateful; to forgive its horrendous facts can be redemptive. Forgive -- but never forget -- history. A salient example of making sure that the horrors of history are not forgotten is the contemporary German state's law prohibiting any World War II history that whitewashes the holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis on the Jews, Gypsies, and Poles. The Jews rightly insist that the world must never forget what happened to them. Where is the Hindu Holocaust Museum ?
The historical record of the Muslim rule in India is soaked in blood -- just take a look at the documents left by contemporary Muslim chroniclers. Yet, as a secular humanist, I would like to make a distinction between an ideology and its adherents, especially those born into it. From my own experience, I regard a typical liberal Indian Muslim to be as good a human being as any other Indian.
In the opening chapter, Gautier briefly examines the "tainted glasses" which made Euro-centered historians expound gross "disinformations" about ancient India : the discredited Aryan invasion theory; the deliberate mistranslations of the Vedas; and the erroneous theory of the origin of the caste system.
Throughout the book, Gautier quotes Sri Aurobindo, and in the concluding chapter, "The Final Dream," pays an inspired homage to the great visionary's writings.
Like Konraad Elst's Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, Francois Gautier's Rewriting Indian History contributes to the growing literature of dissent against the "standard" textbooks of India 's history.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
nehru's view on corruption
Nehru' s views on corruptionEver wonder why India is so corrupt? Because like three-day old fish, the rot starts at the top. Now you know what the top was at the time of India’s independence and therefore you must have had your conjectures. Now wonder no more.An innocuous looking little item in the Hindu of Jan 9, 2010 says:Prime Minister Nehru categorically ruled out any proposal for appointing a high power tribunal to enquire into and investigate charges of corruption against Ministers or persons in high authority, for the main reason that, in India, or for that matter any other country where there was a democratic set-up, he could not see how such a tribunal could function. The appointment of such a tribunal, Mr. Nehru felt, would “produce an atmosphere of mutual recrimination, suspicion, condemnation, charges and counter-charges and pulling each other down, in a way that it would become impossible for normal administration to function.” More than half the time of the Press conference was devoted by Mr. Nehru to deal with this question of appointing a tribunal to enquire into cases of corruption as recently urged by India’s former Finance Minister, Mr. C.D. Deshmukh.The original item was published exactly 50 years earlier in the Hindu: January 9, 1960: Enquiry into charges Remember that Nehru’s Congress party and his progeny have been at the helm of affairs which has led to India to become one stinking filthy heap of corruption. Corruption cannot be eradicated from Indian politics as long as that fact does not change. (Hat tip: Sri.)
NEHRU SWINDLED NETAJI
NEHRU SWINDLED NETAJI
Date: 4/25/2001CommentHow Nehru Swindled Netaji's Treasure Box Foreword: The following true story had been suppressed by the Nehrus and Gandhis for a long time, ostensibly to eliminate whatever good influence Netaji and his men had exerted on our people during those stormy days of rebellion against British occupation of India. It is a thing of shame that the contents of this article had to be displayed to our own people, once again, and that too all the way from the United States, in order for our people to learn the facts. It is more than likely that if the Gandhis and Nehrus had their way, they would have done their best to suppress this small (but nevertheless important) piece of news as well, so that no one in India would learn about the truth. This is exactly what the TIMES OF INDIAs, THE HINDUs, THE ASIAN AGEs continue to do till today. How common thieves in high positions have been deflecting the facts, putting mud on the names of great men like Netaji while, at the same time, trying to cover themselves with false glory. Pandit Nehru and his descendants have long been a curse for our nation and if this dynasty's hold is not removed totally from all aspects of Indian life, there is not going to be true salvation for India! From the late H.N. Pandits' notes (A. Ghosh's comments are in italics) Tatsuo Hayashida has written in his book on Netaji the sequence of events leading to the contents of Netaji's two suitcases being salvaged from the site of the plane crash at Taihoku and being ultimately deposited with Mr. J. Murti, President of the Indian Independence League of Tokyo with the cooperation of Mr. S.A. Ayer, Minister of Propaganda in the Provisional Government of India. For fear that the Allied Occupation authorities might confiscate the treasure if they came to know of it, the treasure was held by Mr. Murti in secrecy till 1951 when Mr. Ayer, on his return to India met the Prime Minister Pandit Nehru and suggested that the Indian Mission in Tokyo might take over the treasure from Mr. Murti for dispatch to India. (Here, Mr Murti made a big mistake, as we will soon see). Accordingly the treasure was taken by the Indian Mission from Mr. Murti on 24 September, 1951. In India, the first public mention of the treasure was made 27 years later when on 8 September, 1978, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, a member of the Parliament, made the sensational allegation at a Press Conference in Bombay that Pandit Nehru had secretly brought the treasure from Tokyo through a trusted ICS officer who delivered it personally to Pandit Nehru at his Teen Murti residence. "It is my information" Dr. Swamy alleged, "that all these ornaments were subsequently melted in Allahabad and credited to Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru's personal account." (It should be mentioned that the jewelry, gold and silver coins were donated by Indians abroad to the Netaji fund for the on going war against the British. The donations came from all classes of Indians, the rich and not so rich. To swindle such money, donated for a noble cause, was a criminal offense and no doubt, Jawahar, the bastard son of Mubarak Ali had to pay for the crime. He did that by contracting a degrading sexual disease and finally dying from it, although it was announced at the time by the GoI that Jawahar had died of heart-failure, without announcing what exactly had provoked the stoppage of the heart!) Subramanian Swamy's statement was published next day with big headlines in newspapers all over the country (The Hindu or the Times of India had not taken over the media as yet). The report of the Press Conference in some newspapers said that Dr. Swamy said that he would raise the issue in the Parliament. But when he did not do so, I (meaning writer H.N. Pandit) met him at his residence on Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road in New Delhi to ask why he had not done so. Dr. Swamy declined to answer. (Obviously, he had been threatened by Nehru and his men that Swamy could go to the press on this only at his own peril. Remember, it was the same Nehru who had triggered the murder of Dr. Shyamaprasad Mookerjee! Swamy, as the French say, had his 'couillometre a zero' and he did not make a sound, any sound on this!) Then on 22nd November, the same year, the Janata Party Prime Minister, Mr. Morarji Desai made a statement in the Lok Sabha saying that the box containing the jewelries had been kept in the National Museum for safe custody. He gave details of the contents of the box which, if true, would prove Dr. Swamy's allegation to be untrue. But Mr. Desai said in his statement that the treasure was NOT open to inspection even by Members of the Parliament. Since my own interest was to publish a picture of the box containing the treasure (as conclusive evidence of Netaji having died in an air crash) I began writing to the National Museum authorities for permission to see the treasure box. Surprisingly, the Museum authorities adopted various evasive methods. The file containing the correspondence on the subject was said to have been misplaced. Then I was asked to address my application successively to the Ministry of External Affairs (that was Nehru's domain) and the Director of Public Instruction (in all probability that was Maulana Azad's domain). (What had evaded our H.N. Pandit was the fact that all these petty officials of GoI's various departments were no better than bastards themselves, who had no national pride and would swallow any insult for the measly salary they were paid.) After persevering in this manner for some time I addressed a letter to the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mrs. Indira Gandhi) requesting that I might be given an opportunity to take a picture of the box. To disarm suspicion of any political motive on my part, I added that I was not interested to see the contents of the box. (Well! Mr. H.N. Pandit should have known that the jewlry had already been melted and the amount obtained therefrom deposited in Nehru's personal account. How he spent it will of course remain a state secret and no Indian national would know it. Such has always been the esteem of our leaders for our own fellowmen. Why do we think that our Gods eliminated Jawahar in such a rotten fashion?) Hardly a week had passed after this when I was visited by a Dy. Superintendent of Police belonging to the Central Intelligence Department, who wanted to know why I was interested in the box containing the treasure. The question was enough to take away my enthusiasm for the investigation. My age (I was then 71) and absence of any political affiliation saved me from difficulties. Five years later, in 1988, when Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister, I again wrote to his Private Secretary for help in seeing the treasure box. The letter was acknowledged by Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyar who promised to solve the problem I was having with the National Museum. He did not write to me again. (Well, Rajiv himself was another bastard foisted on our people as a Parsi and Mani Shankar Aiyar is a notorious traitor, who would not do a thing that might help the cause of Netaji or his followers! The whole brigade of traitors, namely, M.S. Aiyar, K.D. Nayar and I.K. Gujral are now in their last throes of extinction! Soon enough, they will disappear from India's political horizon!) Meanwhile, I had come to know with my own efforts that the ICS officer who was said to have brought the treasure from Tokyo was one Mr. K.R. Damle who was to retire as the Governor of Goa. He was then living in an apartment in Poona. I wrote to him appealing in the name of history to disclose why the matter was being kept secret. I did not get a reply from him. The postal acknowledgment form accompanying the letter was signed by his wife, Mrs. L. Damle. Last year I visited Poona and learnt that both Mr. K.R. Damle and his wife had passed away. (That was good riddance!) Their apartment was then occupied by Mrs Damle's sister and her husband who confirmed that Mr. Damle had really gone to Tokyo on the mission described above; but he had not replied to my letter probably because of the oath of secrecy with which the ICS officers considered themselves bound. In New Delhi, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi had been succeeded in Prime ministership by Mr. Vishwanth Pratap Singh (he was the descendant of the arch-traitor, Jaichand). I wrote to his Private Secretary describing my problems in stating with a measure of certainty in my book that the treasure box is really in existence. I requested for an opportuity to meet which he was unable to grant. (Even if he had met H.N. Pandit, that would have been of no avail! Even a rat would have been more useful for his purpose!) However, he sent my letter to the Ministry of Human Resource Development for disposal. An Under Secretary in the Ministry then wrote to me assuring me that the box was lying in the safe custody of the National Museum, and advised me that I should depend on this statement to meet the requirement of my book. But the letter mentioned the container of the treasure to be a wooden box whereas the Prime Minister's statement in the Parliament in 1978 had said that it was a steel suitcase encased in a cloth bag. Evidently, the writer had not seen the box himself, and he did not care to explain how this had happened. (Well! What can one obtain in the form of dependable data when one has only liars all around us!) A few years earlier I had written to the retired Prime Minister Morarji Desai to ask why he had not allowed even Members of Parliament to see the box. At that time he had replied that he did not remember anything about the treasure. (That is monstrous! Here is a man who during his trip to New York assured CBS anchorman Dan Rather that drinking one's own urine enhanced one's memory; then how come after so many years of imbibing his own secretion of the kidneys, he had difficulty in remembering an important subject like that?) Now, at the end of my long search for a reasonable answer, I wrote to Mr. Desai again asking if he knew it for certain that the box existed. Had he seen the contents of the box with his own eyes or made the statement in Parliament as prepared and put up to him by officers in his Ministry? This time there was no reply from Mr. Desai. The conclusion which on the face of it seemed justified after this experience is that either (1) the treasure is not in existence, or (2) it has been misplaced irrecoverably or (3)it is in such a state that it cannot be shown to people outside a chosen circle, and the policy, therefore, is to bar the people permanently from knowing the facts. Afterword: Such is the state of investigative competence of our government agencies and we wonder how do we have Kargils on our side of the LoC and on the quiet?. It clearly tells us why the French and the Russians had slaughtered their officials wholesale during the French and Russian revolutions. If ever a similar situation evolves in India, we must not neglect to snuff out all such officials along with the leaders, if only to make it easier to get to the truth when the table is finally cleared. With too much undergrowth on the ground, it is not possible to get to the truth. Can you imagine, even today, we do not know who is who in the dynastic chart of the rulers of India. And we are all supposed to be nephews and nieces of the top honcho of the Nehrus! No doubt, the entire world mocks us at our total uselessness to control our top guys who are supposed to depend on our votes! Such silly games cannot go on for too long! ====================== www.swordoftruth.com [_private/ftarc.htm]
Date: 4/25/2001CommentHow Nehru Swindled Netaji's Treasure Box Foreword: The following true story had been suppressed by the Nehrus and Gandhis for a long time, ostensibly to eliminate whatever good influence Netaji and his men had exerted on our people during those stormy days of rebellion against British occupation of India. It is a thing of shame that the contents of this article had to be displayed to our own people, once again, and that too all the way from the United States, in order for our people to learn the facts. It is more than likely that if the Gandhis and Nehrus had their way, they would have done their best to suppress this small (but nevertheless important) piece of news as well, so that no one in India would learn about the truth. This is exactly what the TIMES OF INDIAs, THE HINDUs, THE ASIAN AGEs continue to do till today. How common thieves in high positions have been deflecting the facts, putting mud on the names of great men like Netaji while, at the same time, trying to cover themselves with false glory. Pandit Nehru and his descendants have long been a curse for our nation and if this dynasty's hold is not removed totally from all aspects of Indian life, there is not going to be true salvation for India! From the late H.N. Pandits' notes (A. Ghosh's comments are in italics) Tatsuo Hayashida has written in his book on Netaji the sequence of events leading to the contents of Netaji's two suitcases being salvaged from the site of the plane crash at Taihoku and being ultimately deposited with Mr. J. Murti, President of the Indian Independence League of Tokyo with the cooperation of Mr. S.A. Ayer, Minister of Propaganda in the Provisional Government of India. For fear that the Allied Occupation authorities might confiscate the treasure if they came to know of it, the treasure was held by Mr. Murti in secrecy till 1951 when Mr. Ayer, on his return to India met the Prime Minister Pandit Nehru and suggested that the Indian Mission in Tokyo might take over the treasure from Mr. Murti for dispatch to India. (Here, Mr Murti made a big mistake, as we will soon see). Accordingly the treasure was taken by the Indian Mission from Mr. Murti on 24 September, 1951. In India, the first public mention of the treasure was made 27 years later when on 8 September, 1978, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, a member of the Parliament, made the sensational allegation at a Press Conference in Bombay that Pandit Nehru had secretly brought the treasure from Tokyo through a trusted ICS officer who delivered it personally to Pandit Nehru at his Teen Murti residence. "It is my information" Dr. Swamy alleged, "that all these ornaments were subsequently melted in Allahabad and credited to Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru's personal account." (It should be mentioned that the jewelry, gold and silver coins were donated by Indians abroad to the Netaji fund for the on going war against the British. The donations came from all classes of Indians, the rich and not so rich. To swindle such money, donated for a noble cause, was a criminal offense and no doubt, Jawahar, the bastard son of Mubarak Ali had to pay for the crime. He did that by contracting a degrading sexual disease and finally dying from it, although it was announced at the time by the GoI that Jawahar had died of heart-failure, without announcing what exactly had provoked the stoppage of the heart!) Subramanian Swamy's statement was published next day with big headlines in newspapers all over the country (The Hindu or the Times of India had not taken over the media as yet). The report of the Press Conference in some newspapers said that Dr. Swamy said that he would raise the issue in the Parliament. But when he did not do so, I (meaning writer H.N. Pandit) met him at his residence on Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road in New Delhi to ask why he had not done so. Dr. Swamy declined to answer. (Obviously, he had been threatened by Nehru and his men that Swamy could go to the press on this only at his own peril. Remember, it was the same Nehru who had triggered the murder of Dr. Shyamaprasad Mookerjee! Swamy, as the French say, had his 'couillometre a zero' and he did not make a sound, any sound on this!) Then on 22nd November, the same year, the Janata Party Prime Minister, Mr. Morarji Desai made a statement in the Lok Sabha saying that the box containing the jewelries had been kept in the National Museum for safe custody. He gave details of the contents of the box which, if true, would prove Dr. Swamy's allegation to be untrue. But Mr. Desai said in his statement that the treasure was NOT open to inspection even by Members of the Parliament. Since my own interest was to publish a picture of the box containing the treasure (as conclusive evidence of Netaji having died in an air crash) I began writing to the National Museum authorities for permission to see the treasure box. Surprisingly, the Museum authorities adopted various evasive methods. The file containing the correspondence on the subject was said to have been misplaced. Then I was asked to address my application successively to the Ministry of External Affairs (that was Nehru's domain) and the Director of Public Instruction (in all probability that was Maulana Azad's domain). (What had evaded our H.N. Pandit was the fact that all these petty officials of GoI's various departments were no better than bastards themselves, who had no national pride and would swallow any insult for the measly salary they were paid.) After persevering in this manner for some time I addressed a letter to the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mrs. Indira Gandhi) requesting that I might be given an opportunity to take a picture of the box. To disarm suspicion of any political motive on my part, I added that I was not interested to see the contents of the box. (Well! Mr. H.N. Pandit should have known that the jewlry had already been melted and the amount obtained therefrom deposited in Nehru's personal account. How he spent it will of course remain a state secret and no Indian national would know it. Such has always been the esteem of our leaders for our own fellowmen. Why do we think that our Gods eliminated Jawahar in such a rotten fashion?) Hardly a week had passed after this when I was visited by a Dy. Superintendent of Police belonging to the Central Intelligence Department, who wanted to know why I was interested in the box containing the treasure. The question was enough to take away my enthusiasm for the investigation. My age (I was then 71) and absence of any political affiliation saved me from difficulties. Five years later, in 1988, when Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister, I again wrote to his Private Secretary for help in seeing the treasure box. The letter was acknowledged by Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyar who promised to solve the problem I was having with the National Museum. He did not write to me again. (Well, Rajiv himself was another bastard foisted on our people as a Parsi and Mani Shankar Aiyar is a notorious traitor, who would not do a thing that might help the cause of Netaji or his followers! The whole brigade of traitors, namely, M.S. Aiyar, K.D. Nayar and I.K. Gujral are now in their last throes of extinction! Soon enough, they will disappear from India's political horizon!) Meanwhile, I had come to know with my own efforts that the ICS officer who was said to have brought the treasure from Tokyo was one Mr. K.R. Damle who was to retire as the Governor of Goa. He was then living in an apartment in Poona. I wrote to him appealing in the name of history to disclose why the matter was being kept secret. I did not get a reply from him. The postal acknowledgment form accompanying the letter was signed by his wife, Mrs. L. Damle. Last year I visited Poona and learnt that both Mr. K.R. Damle and his wife had passed away. (That was good riddance!) Their apartment was then occupied by Mrs Damle's sister and her husband who confirmed that Mr. Damle had really gone to Tokyo on the mission described above; but he had not replied to my letter probably because of the oath of secrecy with which the ICS officers considered themselves bound. In New Delhi, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi had been succeeded in Prime ministership by Mr. Vishwanth Pratap Singh (he was the descendant of the arch-traitor, Jaichand). I wrote to his Private Secretary describing my problems in stating with a measure of certainty in my book that the treasure box is really in existence. I requested for an opportuity to meet which he was unable to grant. (Even if he had met H.N. Pandit, that would have been of no avail! Even a rat would have been more useful for his purpose!) However, he sent my letter to the Ministry of Human Resource Development for disposal. An Under Secretary in the Ministry then wrote to me assuring me that the box was lying in the safe custody of the National Museum, and advised me that I should depend on this statement to meet the requirement of my book. But the letter mentioned the container of the treasure to be a wooden box whereas the Prime Minister's statement in the Parliament in 1978 had said that it was a steel suitcase encased in a cloth bag. Evidently, the writer had not seen the box himself, and he did not care to explain how this had happened. (Well! What can one obtain in the form of dependable data when one has only liars all around us!) A few years earlier I had written to the retired Prime Minister Morarji Desai to ask why he had not allowed even Members of Parliament to see the box. At that time he had replied that he did not remember anything about the treasure. (That is monstrous! Here is a man who during his trip to New York assured CBS anchorman Dan Rather that drinking one's own urine enhanced one's memory; then how come after so many years of imbibing his own secretion of the kidneys, he had difficulty in remembering an important subject like that?) Now, at the end of my long search for a reasonable answer, I wrote to Mr. Desai again asking if he knew it for certain that the box existed. Had he seen the contents of the box with his own eyes or made the statement in Parliament as prepared and put up to him by officers in his Ministry? This time there was no reply from Mr. Desai. The conclusion which on the face of it seemed justified after this experience is that either (1) the treasure is not in existence, or (2) it has been misplaced irrecoverably or (3)it is in such a state that it cannot be shown to people outside a chosen circle, and the policy, therefore, is to bar the people permanently from knowing the facts. Afterword: Such is the state of investigative competence of our government agencies and we wonder how do we have Kargils on our side of the LoC and on the quiet?. It clearly tells us why the French and the Russians had slaughtered their officials wholesale during the French and Russian revolutions. If ever a similar situation evolves in India, we must not neglect to snuff out all such officials along with the leaders, if only to make it easier to get to the truth when the table is finally cleared. With too much undergrowth on the ground, it is not possible to get to the truth. Can you imagine, even today, we do not know who is who in the dynastic chart of the rulers of India. And we are all supposed to be nephews and nieces of the top honcho of the Nehrus! No doubt, the entire world mocks us at our total uselessness to control our top guys who are supposed to depend on our votes! Such silly games cannot go on for too long! ====================== www.swordoftruth.com [_private/ftarc.htm]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)