Site Title

Category: Uncategorized

  • Three Greatest Indians in my view

    It is rightly said that “History of a country is history of a few great men”. India is one of the oldest countries in the world with its civilization dating back to around five thousand years. It has produced majestic kings, poets, warriors, saints, writers, thinkers, scientists, and political polymaths like Chanakya and Tagore. “Sone ki Chidiya”, meaning a Golden Bird was a sobriquet associated with India. As a country, we have traversed a long and turbulent path to reach where we are today.

    I truly believe that the strength of a country lies in its secular values and its “ethics of acceptance”. Its integrity is deeply rooted in its “national capacity” to embrace people from all walks of life, people from all religious groups and sects. This diversity unites the country in a common strand. As I ponder on the personalities that have an indelible mark on the “making of India” and putting it on a global map, I come across three great leaders who, after reaching pinnacle of their carrier, reshaped the country to what it has become today.

    Khushwant Singh: I am not a well read man but if there is one author that I have read, reread and wholeheartedly enjoyed is Khushwant Singh. Born in Hadali, Pakistan, Singh was India’s most prolific writer. With a gift to write exceptionally well in both fiction and non-fiction, he has re-defined the literary and intellectual landscape of the country. Known for his “brutal” honesty, Singh received the “Honest man of the year award” in 2000. Whether it is his unswerving support for emergency, his admiration for Indira Gandhi, his opprobrium of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, or his stern criticism of Mr. L.K Advani for his “Ram Rath Yatra”, Singh spared no one. What distinguished him from other Indian writers was his lucid and simple writing that connected to the ordinary peoples of India. His motto was “Inform, Amuse and Provoke”. And he did provoked both his fans and his adversaries. On a personal level, among other things, it was his belief system and his agnosticism that resonated with me the most. Recipient of the “Padma Vibhushan”, he was a true champion of democracy and a secular India.

    Atal Bihari Vajpayee: As the name “Atal” signifies, Vajpayee was resolute in some of the most trying times faced by modern India. His handling of Kargil War was testimony to his apt political and diplomatic leadership. A poet of Hindi language, a writer and a statesman of the highest order, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s contribution in paving way for a miraculous “Indian growth story” is commended not only by his allies but also his opponents. His policies led the country into a spectacular development, especially, in the Infrastructure sector. His analysis on how India got divided into martial and non-martial race that eventually led to the barbarous attacks by the Afghan looters gives me goosebumps. His hold on the Indian “political topography” and on the foreign affairs was incredible. It does not brings even an iota of surprise to me when Nehru once stated that “This young man will one day become prime minister of India.”

    APJ Abul Kalam Azad: Born to a humble family of fisherman in a small town in Tamil Nadu, Dr. Kalam’s journey to becoming the “Missile Man of India” and orchestrating the scientific landscape of India is a motivating story for any aspiring young man. He played an instrumental role in the Pokhran – II nuclear tests conducted in 1998. His scientific prowess and direction gave Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), and Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) ambitious wings to fly on the global stage. I believe that India owes more to Dr. Kalam than it does to any other scientist the country has ever “produced”. He laid the foundation for the development of “Agni” and “Prithvi” missiles. Dr. Kalam’s personality transcended beyond his scientific and scholarly outlook. He was unanimously chosen by all the political parties as the President of India and was soon regarded as the “People’s president”. What inspires me most about him was his connect with the young and aspiring minds of India and his priceless motivation to them to tirelessly contribute in making India a developed country. A copious writer, he authored several books that continue to ignite the minds of young Indians. Dr. Kalam was also a strong proponent of secularism. For him, religion was not a tool to fight, but to make friends. His non negotiable approach towards democracy and deep conviction for acceptance of all religions and sections of the Indian society makes him one of the greatest minds of India.

    In my view, the names of these three “Giants” will be written in golden letters in the Indian history.

  • Response to General G.D Bakshi: Why Russia did not launched nuclear strike on Ukraine?

    Historically ,the foremost reason for most of the invasions across the world has been expansionism. May it be the annexation of Europe and Northern Africa by the Nazis, the rise of imperial forces across Asia and Africa, or the spread of Christianity and Islam across the world, the goal has been to increase the sphere of influence over the conquered lands. Russian invasion on Ukraine is no different.

    Ukraine and Russia have had cordial relations up until 2013 when the pro Russian government was overthrown and the demand of the people to join NATO grew. Did the Russian invasion of Ukraine stems out only because of the reason that if Ukraine joins NATO, it would pose an “existential threat” to Russia? I do not think so. There are already reports that imply that the purpose of invasion was to capture the resources (like Lithium) on the Ukrainian soil. To add to that, Poland and Finland, are other two countries which share their borders with Russia, and are members of NATO. Did Russia invaded these aforementioned countries too? No, it did not. The three year conflict have left thousands killed, thousands displaced, and have caused one of the largest humanitarian crises the world has seen after the World War – II

    To elaborate on why I think Russia is on the wrong footing here is a discussion for another time. To stay within the confines of the article, I would like to express my thoughts on as to why the bloody battle did not resulted in Russia striking Ukraine with its vast stockpile of nuclear weapons and opening the gates of hell on the entire European continent.

    What prompted me to manifest my two cents as to why the war did not resulted in a nuclear conflict was a video of Major General G.D Bakshi. In the video he was drawing parallels between Indo-Pakistan conflict and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict stating that if Russia did not fired nukes on Ukraine even after three years of prolonged and costly battle, Pakistan would also not do the same. “How may nuclear bombs have Russia dropped on Ukraine since the war started?” were his words that I vividly remember. I base my arguments on the following four points:

    First, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not a conflict between two equal opponents. Even if NATO is behind Ukraine, it is a reality that Russia possesses the largest stock of nuclear weapons and Ukraine, even though has nuclear plants, does not have any weapons of mass destruction. In contrast, both India and Pakistan are nuclear states.

    Secondly, in my opinion, Russia never had and never will face any threat to its existence even if the war prolongs for another decade. Russia is a vast country and history has proven that from the Napoleon aggression to the Nazi’s invasion, the country has never ever been under occupation by a foreign ruler. The depth, length and breadth of the country is so vast that it is almost impossible for any country to occupy it. Now, on the other hand, it is very much possible for India to capture a sizeable part of Pakistan or to enforce a complete blockade of the Karachi port thereby strangling that country to a definitive collapse. This dire situation, according to many Pakistani analysts including their revered Najam Sethi, will be considered as an existential threat. As per the Nuclear doctrine of Pakistan, if it faces this kind of a threat, it will use its tactical nuclear weapons on the Indian armed forces.

    My third argument has its basis on what a responsible state and a responsible leadership is. Russia, even after the break up of Soviet Union, is a technologically advanced country. It has a robust space program and still is amongst the largest exporters of weapons in the world. According to a report, Moscow has the second largest number of billionaires in the world after New York City. Russia has seen immense progress in its past and is still recognized as a global power to reckon with. Viz-a-Viz, Pakistan is mostly a failed state with a plummeting economy and far from making any technological footprint on the world map.

    My fourth and last argument revolves around the Jihadi mindset. As I have also iterated in my other articles that the intoxication of dying for one’s religion is the most destructive and the most lethal intoxications of all. Pakistani Army is headed by such an extremist mindset. Even though the country is on a verge of an economical collapse, its head, Asif Munir continues to arm his forces to its teeth. He also continues to spit venom against other religions as is evident by his recent speech against the Hindus. In the event of a conventional defeat, I am highly skeptical that this idiosyncratic Munir will not press the the “doomsday button”. Russia on the other hand, though fueled by its greed and ambition to exert and reestablish its sphere of influence in the Eastern European and the Baltic region, does not suffers from this “do or die” mindset of achieving martyrdom in the name of God.

  • How entrepreneurial are the Indian educational institutes?

    Waterloo is a small University town located in the Canadian province of Ontario. With a population of less than a hundred thousand, it is an entrepreneurial powerhouse. With more than one thousand start ups credited to its innovative history, the region is one of the most progressive startup ecosystems in the world. Situated twelve thousand kilometers away is Mumbai, India’s financial center. Indian Institute of Technology, or IIT located in this financial hub is one of the primary educational institutes in the Asian region. Its E-cell has spawned more than two thousand companies, making it the largest in the Indian subcontinent.

    This is not just a comparison between two of the finest institutes, it is a comparison between a highly developed G8 country and a one of the fastest developing countries in the world. Although, India has made great strides in developing an entrepreneurial environment, it still is a land of extremes. On the one side, we have universities that rank among the best in the global rankings, but on the other hand, we still have a significant population who can hardly put a signature with a pen.

    Indian startup scene is becoming more and more inclusive over the time. With an active role played by the governmental sector, the outreach program is reaching and changing lives of millions of people across the country. A few days back, I came across an article on Gatesnotes that talked about DroneDidis, an innovative public sector scheme which empowers women in rural Bihar to use the technology of drones to increase their agricultural output by effective use of fertilizers. This exemplifies how Indian entrepreneurial landscape is getting transformed, even though at a gradual speed.

    To create an enriching and a supportive platform for the ideas to nurture and mature into successful enterprises, it is not only the government sector that has to chip in, it is also the private players and other organizational stakeholders that need to contribute in the creation of a dynamic start up society. In my view, the Indian economical and business sector has gone through four waves of evolution. The first wave was the opening up of call centers after the liberalization of the Indian economy. The second wave was the onset of Information technology industry. The third was the investment of United States into the research and development sector in India, primarily in the cities of Hyderabad, Bengaluru and Pune. The fourth ongoing wave is that of the boom in startups or technology oriented small scale businesses.

    I firmly believe that educational institutes can play an instrumental role in developing and nurturing the entrepreneurial energies of the Indian youth. They can act as a “beacon of inspiration” and provide the much needed mentorship, especially the in nascent years of the budding entrepreneurs. Although more and more universities and educational institutes are embracing innovation and entrepreneurship into their academic fabric, much still needs to be done. While I do agree that we have come a long way as an innovative and a productive society, there are challenges ahead of us.

    Recently, I was going through the specializations offered by the Master of Business Administration , or MBA program of my alma mater and I was surprised to certain extent that entrepreneurship was not one of those. It is not only my university business school that still hasn’t introduced entrepreneurship as a stream, the story is same for majority of the educational institutes across the country. The startup scene on the campus is still concentrated in the premier universities of the country like the IIT’s, IIM’s and private educational colleges.

    I think this is where we still have a gap and this is what needs a change. While I do agree that academic and vocational institutions do need to create a “white collar” workforce and prepare its pupils to excel in corporate jobs, but I strongly think that universities need to invest its resources in development of “Job creators” as well. Incubators should be set up on university campuses which not only nourishes students in its technology departments but also encourages young and aspiring minds from arts and commerce departments as well. Students should have an access to mentorship, to investment capital and access to the market where they can launch their idea. Cutting edge paradigms and business concepts like Design thinking should be absorbed in the entrepreneurial training and skill development. The start up growth has to be inclusive for India to compete with other countries.

    It is rightly said that the development comes when the highest level of technology reaches the lowest level of the society. The “startup culture” needs to percolate deep into the Indian society. Our educational institutes have the potential to accelerate this development and catapult the nation to the global stage.

  • My four favorite Hollywood movies

    A good movie is like a telepathy which transcends the mind to another dimension. It takes you through a journey into the past, the contemporary and into the future thereby opening new doors to a wide spectrum of thoughts. It can act as a guide and a teacher that can make you cry, can make you laugh, boost your spirit or can make you feel low. Most importantly, it can provoke thoughts paving a way for deeper reflection. While I have been a passionate enthusiast of Hollywood movies throughout my life, there are some that stand out from the rest, especially in terms of their depth and dramatic quality. Here are four movies that I believe are not only a must watch for anyone but can be life changing as well.

    The Pianist: Based on a true story, the movie revolves around the life of Wladyslaw Szpilman, a Polish pianist caught in the midst of the Nazi occupation of Poland. The movie takes one through the struggle for survival of Szpilman who, despite losing all his belongings, his passion for music and his family, does not looses hope for becoming free once again. Played by Adrien Brody, I believe the movie is his best performance as a remarkable actor that won him the best actor award. The Pianist makes one ponder on the desperate feats one carries out when faced with life threatening situations. “Food is more important than time” is a dialogue that got imprinted on my mind forever.

    Schindler’s list: Hope is the central emphasis of The Holy Bible which strengthens one’s belief system and makes him optimistic and full of faith. I strongly think that it is not rationality or logic that moves life forward, it is one’s faith that is transformative. Schindler’s list is one such movie that is all about hope and the gift of life given by Oskar Schindler to twelve hundred Jews engulfed and enslaved in the Nazi concentration camps. Based on a true story, Schindler was a German industrialist and member of Nazi party and was highly critical of of its nefarious designs, especially when it came to the persecution of European Jews. The movie is a soul wrenching voyage on how, irrespective of color, cast, affiliation or belief system, one human being can make life changing impact on several people. To this day, his grave located in Jerusalem is one of the most visited sites by Jews around the world.

    Goodwill Hunting: The movie is one of the finest in the history of movie industry, especially when it comes to describing intricacies of human nature and complexities of human relationships. Centered around a disoriented yet a genius young man, the movie is based on the relationship of a mentor, played by Robin Williams and his “psychological” patient, a role eloquently played by Matt Damon. The movie depicts how a mathematical prodigy yet an unfocused man finds his purpose in life after he goes through a convoluted association with his “mental” curator.

    Twelve Angry Men: M.K Gandhi once said that “Truth is truth even if it in minority of one”. No adage applies to this movie better than the aforementioned quote. The protagonist of the movie is played by Henry Fonda in a highly critically acclaimed role. This dramatical movie is centered around a young boy, charged with the murder of his father, whose life is in the hands of 12 men who are given the task to decide whether he goes to the gallows or not. The lead character played by Henry Fonda is the only one with reasonable doubts that the boy is guilty. From the only one voicing for the boy, the movie goes into an intense argumentative mode consequently altering the arguments and changing the stance of the other juries to decide that the boy is not guilty. If you like arguments and how they can shape decision making, then this movie is a must watch. No wonder that this classic is still shown to the students of business schools around the world to showcase how arguments, when put forward methodically and through conviction can alter even the well entrenched perspective of people.

  • How righteous was Karna?

    Mahabharata is considered to be the longest written poem in the world. The nucleus of it is “Bhagwat Gita” which provides deep reflections on how one should conduct his life. However, unlike millions of Hindus, I do not consider Mahabharata to be a work of history. For me it is a mythology. I don’t deny that the events described in this great epic never occurred but I do not accept the folklore surrounding it. Kurukshetra war might have happened and the characters might have existed too , but I do not buy the supernatural events encompassing it.

    Whether Mahabharata is a work of history or mythology is a discussion for another time, but I have been inspired by many of its characters throughout my life. The “folk tale” contains several situations that one can relate to in their own lives. It is a saga of triumph, of loss, of malign, of love, of virtues and of frivolous decisions made by “great men” of those times.

    One character that stands out and grabs my attention is that of Karna. People usually consider him as someone doomed by destiny who had to align with the “evil” Duryodhana. Was he righteous in his conduct? Did his actions earned him a place in the “Heaven” as the mythology states? I think he had his share of mistakes and “immoral” conduct, but before concluding that Karna had an “evil frame of mind”, one has to think in context of the circumstances in which those vices were committed.

    Abandoned by Kunti, he was raised by his foster parents, Radheya and Adhiratha. He was rejected by Dronacharya who refused to take him as his disciple on the grounds that he was not a “Kshatriya” (or Warrior). He eventually got trained by Parshurama, who cursed him that all the learnings that he got from him would be rendered useless when he needs them the most. The reason behind this curse was that Parshurama thought that Karna had hidden his real identity from him and got the training in a clandestine manner.

    Karna’s misfortune does not ends there. He was also cursed by a “Brahmin” that on the most decisive battle of his life, the wheel’s of his chariot would be submerged in the ground and the “demon of fear” will surround him from all sides. To add to his adversity, Indra, the God of rain visited him at a time when he granted people with anything they asked from him. Indra, disguised as a Brahmin, deceived him and took away his divine armor and his earrings. This armor had the power to protect Karna from any divine weapon and his earrings gave him strength of an elephant. Krishna, the Hindu deity, mentions it himself that had Indra not taken the armor and earrings from Karna, his defeat was impossible.

    Despite of all these maledictions, he never left hope and is known as an epitome of valor. Many do argue that he insulted Draupadi during the infamous game of dice and that he also joined Duryodhana in slaying the young and armless warrior Abhimanyu. These make him as much a partner in crime as Duryodhana. I would argue that albeit these instances cannot be refuted and hold merit to some degree, one also has to understand the venomous slangs thrown by Draupadi on Karna.

    During the “Swayamvar” of Draupadi, Karna contested for her hand along with other princely warriors including Arjuna. Karna was the first one to lift up the Bow and knot its string but was “brazenly” rejected by Draupadi on the grounds that he was a “Sootputra” (son of a Charioteer) and not eligible for her garland. On another occasion, the “arrogant” Draupadi insulted Duryodhana by calling her “Andhe ka Putra Andha”, which means blind son of a blind man. Despite this, he was thoughtful enough to question and object Duryodhana and his wicked uncle Shakuni for their treacherous means of killing Pandavas. It was his unwavering commitment to Duryodhana that made him offend Draupadi during the game of Dice. All these, along with Yudhishthira’s intoxication with the game of dice laid the foundations for the battle of Kurukshetra.

    Karna was a dedicated friend, a wise ruler of the kingdom of Anga, and embodied all the great virtuous of Pandavas. Even Krishna himself appreciated and praised Karna on many occasions. He had a soft corner for karna and said at one point before the battle that if he wished, he would want karna to never fight the battle since it was only him who had the “astras” or the weapons to defeat Arjuna.

    So was Karna righteous? I would say he was as righteous and as villainous as the Pandavas.

  • An analysis of the “Grey Shades” of Pandit Nehru’s policies

    Atal Bihari Vajpayee, one of India’s greatest statesmen and politician, once stated about the erstwhile Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru that he is a “mix of Churchill and Chamberlin”. While Churchill lead the Allied forces to victory over the Nazis, Chamberlin, was a puny leader known for his appeasement policy towards the Nazis.

    The spirit and soul of any country lies in its institutions and the capability of its leaders to build these institutions. I strongly agree that Nehru’s character and his policies were an amalgamation of both strength and weakness. On the one hand, he was an institution builder and paved the way for accelerating the growth and development of India but on the other hand, he made a few blunders when it comes to some of the most contentious issues facing the country even to this day.

    As the first prime minister of independent India, he prioritized boosting domestic production thereby reducing the reliance solely on imports. He boosted industrialization and promoted social equality uplifting millions of Indians out of sheer poverty. His reforms in the agriculture sector are undoubtedly evident in establishment of agricultural universities across the country. His administration abolished the “Zamindari” system thereby giving profits of the land to the cultivators. He played a pivotal role in creation of National Cadet Corps which empowered youth of the country and increased their participation in nation building.

    Nehru was instrumental in orchestrating planning commission which focused on formulating five year plans channelizing the country’s resources towards progress. His policies in the educational sector were impressive and deserve credit too. The establishment of four of the India’s premier technology institution’s namely, Indian Institutes of technology, or IIT’s , was brought to fruition under his leadership. Massive projects were launched under his governance ranging from setting up steel industry and to the creation of hydroelectric plants.

    Another aspect that I appreciate about his outlook and his personality was his stand on secularism. His thoughts on religion were broad minded and accommodated religious belief’s of all sects of the Indian society. He was instrumental in launching uniform civil code which fostered social equality and created common platform under the Laws for all the religious groups represented in the country. I strongly believe that there is no place for religious bigotry and extremism in any democratic country.

    While I do commend and acknowledge Nehru’s immense contribution in igniting the much needed growth and development, especially in those initial years of the country when it was still taking its toddler steps, I strongly disagree his policies and decisions on three fronts.

    In 1947, Pakistani mercenaries and tribesmen attacked the princely state of Kashmir and occupied what is now called the “Pakistani Occupied Kashmir”. The Maharaja of Kashmir appealed to India for assistance and it took several days for Nehru and his administration to send in the Indian armed forces to counter the Pakistani assault. It is even speculated that Nehru did not intimated Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel on the situation, a grave mistake considering the role that the “Iron man” played in uniting Princely states with India. Even after the army was sent in, Nehru made another diabolical mistake by approaching the United Nations for mediating in calling the ceasefire. Did we missed an opportunity to take back the entire Kashmir region had the UN not stepped in or our advancing army not stopped? I think yes. Had Patel played a more decisive role in getting back Kashmir instead of Nehru? I again think, yes.

    Nehru’s appeasement policy with China is another front where I think he displayed his incapability, or rather feebleness. He signed Panchsheel, or the five principles of peaceful co-existence with China in 1954. His imprudence in judging our larger adversary cost us dearly in the 1962 debacle when the Chinese army invaded Indian northeastern states and parts of Kashmir region. The loss is still imprinted on the minds of Indian people and our armed forces. His “unwavering” trust on China reflected an enormous gap in his foreign policy.

    I am also critical of Nehru’s (and Congress to a larger extent) policy of inclining towards Soviet Union rather than towards the Western block. USSR was a communist country and it is widely reported that it funded the Communist Party of India and shaped the Indian polity to its benefit. While I do agree that Soviet invested in India laying the foundation of much of our infrastructure, our Space program and our defense ecosystem, I do not believe in the basic tenets of communism. The ideology curbs personal freedom, liberty, and enterprising spirit of an individual. India’s policy of shifting towards the United States started with the rise of Jan Sangh, but the major change came in under Prime Minister P.V Narsimha Rao and the then Finance minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. I firmly maintain that had we joined the Western block in our early stages of independence, we would not have experienced the economical crises that we faced in 1991 following the disintegration of USSR.

    Overall, while I do think that the bedrock of development laid by Nehru in our nascent years which focused on self reliance took us far ahead than our neighbor Pakistan, his policies on Kashmir and China unfolded insurmountable challenges for our country that we continue to face to this day

  • Should there be mandatory Military service in India?

    There is a famous adage by John F. Kennedy which says “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country”. In a world ravaged by wars and conflicts, patriotism, or the emotion of love for one’s country has never been been more cardinal. From Israel-Hamas conflict to Ukraine-Russia conflict to Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute and now the ongoing India-Pakistan standoff, we are finding ourselves engulfed in an increasingly hostile global environment.

    Contrary to what some thinkers and philosophers opine that a country is just an abstract concept and patriotism is an “idiotic” sentiment, I would argue that serving one’s country and upholding its ethos is absolutely a moral and conscientious duty of its citizens. Plato, the Greek Philosopher, in his seminal work Crito states that one should be ready to die for one’s country. A nation is a lot more than just a geographical area. It embodies within it a rich culture, its history, its traditions and its virtues. It gives a unifying identity to its inhabitants and binds them into a common strand.

    There are umpteen ways to serve one’s country and its interests. In my opinion, conscription or a mandatory military service for a limited period of time is one of the foremost ways to participate in nation building. This takes me back to the year 2003 when I had an opportunity to join the National Cadet Corps or NCC. Personally, it was one of the most enriching experiences of my life. The fourteen days that I spent with the valorous soldiers of the Indian Armed forces transmogrified not only my physique but my mental state of mind.

    NCC was formed in 1948 with direct involvement of Jawaharlal Nehru and headed by H.N Kunzru. Since its inception, it has played a constructive role in serving national interests. Serving time in Army or getting trained in an organization like NCC fuels the patriotic feeling and enhances a sense of belongingness among its citizens. It transforms people into valuable resources which can be used during any state of emergency, irrespective of whether it is internal or external. This service creates a large pool of “human capital” that can be channelized for societal development.

    A mandatory military service instills leadership qualities and provides mental and psychological strength. It increases civic sense among its people and creates a “caring attitude” towards the society and the country at large. To add to that, it generates immense pride and appreciation for the Armed forces who sacrifice their lives for the nation. Many countries like Singapore, Egypt and Israel already have conscription enacted by the laws of their respective countries.

    Given the geographical position of India and its discord with Pakistan and China, I strongly think that having mandatory service in armed forces is not only productive but creates a second line of defense. It is empowering not only at the individual level but also at the national level.

  • Factors that led the Britishers to leave India

    There is an entrenched belief among many Indians that the country got its independence from the Britishers because of the non violent, non cooperation movement led by M.K Gandhi. Many also believe that it was a combination of the “peaceful protest” led by Gandhi and the revolutionary forces led by the likes of Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad and Subhash Chandra Bose that paved the way for India’s freedom.

    Before I ponder on the real factor that ended the “Raj” in the Indian subcontinent region, I would like to opine on how effective civil disobedience movement based on non violence can be. I do agree that Gandhi did played an instrumental role in unifying the country giving it a sense of identity and that his efforts focused on empowering the distraught peasants and promoted the religious pluralism but was it enough to free India from the shackles of British rule? Were his anti colonial measures potent enough to give that knockout blow to the powerful imperialist regime? I would argue they were not. Non violence can undoubtedly create civil disobedience in a society, but it is not impactful to an extent where it can cause a ruler to fret and run away.

    Like his personality, Gandhi’s mechanism of protest was controversial too. He preached peace and “Satyagraha” to the world but launched a campaign to enlist Indians to join the British efforts during World War – I. He encouraged Indians to stop using the British clothes but was invited by the Britishers to attend the second round table conference in London. There is a famous picture of him posing with British ladies with a smile on his face. On one hand, the revolutionaries or the so called “terrorists” as the Britishers labeled them, were brutally tortured in the jails, Gandhi was given the “luxury” of writing his autobiography during the time he spent in jail. What kind of an agitation is that?

    More than a foe, I think Gandhi was a confidante of the Britishers. If that would not be the case, why would the Britishers “invite” him and sit with him on the negotiating table? Did the Britishers had the same “soft corner”for Bhagat Singh or Bose. These people were a greater threat to the the empire than the non violent Gandhi. I do agree that there is a merit in the argument that since Gandhi exerted an influence on the Indian masses, it was a diplomatic strategy for the Britishers to negotiate with him. But was it an impossible task for the “cunning” and politically dexterous British officers to subdue him? I think it was not.

    The rise of Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose and more importantly, the rise of communist ideology fostered by the Hindustan Republican Army posed a serious threat to the empire. The influence of Bhagat Singh on the youth of the country and the formation of Indian National army by Bose fueled nationalism in Indians. However, Britishers were extremely canny in their approach in handling Indians. The famous (or I would say notorious) “Divide and Conquer” method proved successful for them in segregating the Indian society. India, unfortunately has a history of producing its “Jaychand’s“. The British think tank was extremely apt in pitting Indians against Indians. For an empire as powerful and as shrewd as the the British empire, it was not impossible to crush the revolutionary movement.

    The aforementioned factors did played a role in the Indian independence, but they were not suffice in sending the Britishers back home. I strongly believe that what really led the Britishers to “quit” India was World War – II and the impact it had in weaking the empire. To run and administer any region, especially a region as vast as the Indian subcontinent, a country requires massive resources. Let me draw a parallel with why the Nazis were not able to hold off the Allied invasion during D-Day in 1944. It is widely believed that had the Nazis not launched Operation Barbarossa, the allied army would still have been fighting the Nazis. A lot of Nazi army units got “chewed up” in the eastern front in the conflict with the Soviet forces that they could not maintain their hold on the western front.

    World War – II dented the British economy gravely. Their foreign reserves dwindled and the Debt grew enormously. Adding to this quandary, the country lost approximately four hundred thousand soldiers in the war with many more injured. The country’s infrastructure was damaged and it took them several years to rebuild it. This depletion of resources was the primary reason that the empire lost its grip on its colonies, especially India. This, along with the growing internal pressure against colonialism, consequently ended their reign.

    The notion that we “seized” the control back from the Britishers is falsified and not based on the complete analysis of the factors that resulted in our Independence.

  • Response to the Dawn News Article

    I detest Jingoism in all its forms, irrespective of any country that engages in it. I recently read an article by Mr. Shahzeb Ahmed in Pakistan’s most trusted English language newspaper, The DAWN. The article discusses the nonsensical role that the Indian media is playing in creating a false narrative against Pakistan and its armed forces.

    Wars and conflicts are not only about two countries exchanging artillery shells and bullets. It also entails information warfare, a potent weapon to crush the moral of enemy and boosting the moral of its own people. History has illustrated how evil a propaganda warfare can be. What the Nazi propaganda machinery under Joseph Goebbels did to the Jewish community is horrendous and abominable. Therefore, I do agree with the author but I do have my reservations, especially when it is argued in the context of the ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan.

    While I agree that some of the Indian media houses are disseminating incorrect information thereby violating ethics of responsible Journalism but the author fails to mention what the media houses in his country have been doing. Leave aside the media houses, does the author has nerves to contemplate and share with his audience what the Army chief of his country says about Hindus? Does he reasons with what an idiotic analyst, Zaid Hamid says about Hindus and how he pompously claims that he will carry “Ghazwa-eHind” on India? Does he penalizes his Journalists and panelists from spewing venom against Hindus and threating India by creating “Khalistan”? Is the Pakistani media not giving this conflict a religious color? Can he talk rationality with the Indian women who were inconsolable after they lost their husbands at the hands of terrorists? These can be uncomfortable questions for the author to answer in a country where every aspect of its existence is dominated by its army.

    It is not hidden to the world that Pakistan is a terror factory. Mr. Khawaja Muhammad, the defense minister of that country has already admitted that it has been doing this “dirty work” for United States more than thirty years. According to the American analyst Bruce Riedel, the top three most wanted terrorist in its list are based out of Pakistan.

    And I do not blame it on the ordinary citizens of Pakistan. In my own professional and personal experience, I have met amazing people who hailed from Pakistan. It is the administration and more importantly the armed forces who have an extremist bent of mind. They are solely responsible for orchestrating nefarious plots to create instability in Kashmir and India. Their role in disintegrating India by instigating the Khalistan movement in late 1970’s and early 1980’s is evident and well documented.

    I reiterate and second that there are Indian journalists and media houses which indulge in creating war hysteria and the author did critiqued them in his piece. Now it is the turn of Asif Munir and its radical goons to get roasted by the same author in the most “rational” newspaper of Pakistan, The DAWN.

  • How successful has the Operation Sindoor been so far?

    The foreign policy of all the successive Indian government has been that of tolerance and peace. Even the Indian military’s posture has been that of defensive – offense. Never in the history has India invaded any other country or taken an aggressive stance. While some may argue that India fired the first shot in 1971 war with Pakistan that liberated Bangladesh, I would counter argue that the Indian government took action against the aggressor, which was the Pakistani armed forces, trampling the Bangladeshi people. Allied intervention and invasion of Europe against the Nazis was tantamount to what India did in the Bangladesh War of Independence.

    Indian defense strategy and foreign policy started to take a turn after 2014 when Mr. Narendra Modi got elected as prime minister. With Ajit Doval as the National security advisor, the country drastically changed its strategy to Defensive-Offence. Although, India did not launched any offence against any of its neighbor, especially Pakistan, it made it loud and clear that no terror activity on its soil would go unpunished. Albeit I am of an opinion that both the Uri attack and Balakot air strike were vague when it comes to providing concrete evidence of those assaults on the Pakistani occupied Kashmir, Indian retaliation after the recent Pahalgam attack, named as “Operation Sindoor”, surpassed my wildest imagination. Is this the same India that preached peace to the world and once gullibly signed Panchsheel with China in 1954.

    Since the 1971 Indo-Pak war, this was the first time that the Indian army struck deep inside the Pakistani territory. Nine locations were targeted in Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Pakistan by the Indian missiles and the Indian Air force under the able leadership of Air Chief Marshal Mr. AP Singh. Irrespective of how many terrorists died and how many building these retaliatory strikes brought down, it gave a strong message to the Pakistani administration and the Pakistani army and “enough is enough”. If innocent Indians, irrespective of their religion, bleed, there will be blood on Pakistani side as well. This message to Pakistan and the a larger global community was imperative.

    So, has the “Operation Sindoor” been a success? In my opinion, yes. Has it achieved its ultimate goal of dismantling the Pakistani “terror ecosystem”? I think no, at least not yet. We have to take into account that dealing with terrorism is not only dealing with the people and the buildings that constitute the infrastructure used to launch terror attacks on the Indian soil. We are dealing with an ideology with sinister designs. It is easy to bring down infrastructure and kill some people, but it is an extremely intricate mission to kill an ideology, especially when it is state sponsored.

    Just after the Operation Sindoor, I heard what the mastermind behind the Mumbai terror attacks, Masoor Azhar stated. “No regret, No Despair” were his words. He went further and stated that all his family members who died in the Indian attacks will become the “Guests of Allah”. Now how do we deal with that kind of a mindset. Killing one Masood is certainly not the solution since he (and the apparatus supporting him)can spawn ten more Masood’s.

    Even though Indian state of Punjab is largely peaceful now, have we been able to stem out the Khalistan separatism completely? Absolutely not. Has United States and the western world succeeded in subduing the “Islamic terrorism” to the full extent? Absolutely not. Even in my country of origin, have we achieved victory in curbing the nefarious plots of organizations like “Bajrang Dal” targeted against the minorities? The answer in my opinion is again no.

    I strongly think that terrorism cannot be completely erased only by the use of muscle power. It is a long term struggle requiring diplomatic, political and military measures. It also requires empowering and enlightening the youth, providing them with opportunities, and brining these disgruntled minds back into the mainstream.

    Operation Sindoor was an absolute military necessity but it is still incomplete and not yet reached its fruition. We are in a long term game here.