Site Title

Tag: history

  • Indira Gandhi: “Gungi Gudiya” or “Durga”?

    In his prolific book, Why I Supported the Emergency, India’s best-known writer Khushwant Singh, recalls what Hilaire Belloc mentions about Indira Gandhi: “Her face was like the King’s command, when all the swords are drawn”. In the realm of Indian history, there have been very few leaders who could match the majestic demeanor of Mrs. Gandhi. The decisions that she took during her rule changed the Indian polity forever and its repercussions continue to echo till this day in our contemporary times.

    India, as we know it today, is largely the result of Mrs. Gandhi’s tenure as the country’s prime minister. People representing different political parties have differing views about her. Some like the statesman Atal Bihari Vajpayee called her “Durga” and some like Ram Manohar Lohiya called her “Gungi Gudiya”. While she might be docile in the initial stages of her political career, she went on to become one of the strongest leaders who rewrote the chapters of the Indian political landscape. On the one side, she knew how to aptly deal with her opponents, and on many occasions, with an iron hand, but on the other hand, she connected with the ordinary people of the nation who called her “Amma” or mother.

    Like her father Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira had several political feats that transmogrified Indian political history, but like him, she also had her share of blunders that continue to reverberate to this day. From the “assassination” of Lal Bahadur Shastri in Tashkent to the assault on CPI leader Sitaram Yechury on the JNU campus, her political life was marred with controversies and political dissensions. As the first woman prime minister of independent India, she rose to such a status in her long career that for millions of Indians, “India was Indira and Indira was India”.

    In my view, the greatest achievement of Mrs. Gandhi was the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. Pakistan had to be “taught a lesson” for its atrocities in the then East Pakistan and it was under the leadership of Indira that it was meticulously implemented. Just before the invasion, she asked Sam Manekshaw, the former chief of the Indian Army to enter erstwhile East Pakistan, but Manekshaw replied back that he needed to prepare for a complete definite victory. And victory did come when after a few months, the Indian armed forces entered Bangladesh.

    I recall one of the interviews of Mrs. Gandhi conducted by BBC on this matter in which she was questioned about the morality of interfering in another country’s matter. Her response was “What did Allied forces do when Hitler went rampant all over Europe?”. Post World War – II never has a country been liberated by the sheer use of military might except Bangladesh. This conflict under her prime ministership catapulted India to a regional power to reckon with. She was posthumously awarded the “Bangladesh Freedom Honor” for her role in the freedom of that country.

    The 1971 war was not a standalone military accomplishment under the “authority” of Mrs. Gandhi. In my opinion, there are two more historical episodes in which India and its armed forces emerged triumphant. The first was the 1967 Indo-Chinese skirmishes that took place in the state of Sikkim. The Indian forces caused massive casualties on the Chinese side and regained their lost pride from the India-China conflict of 1962. The other was the equally significant “Operation Meghdoot“. Indian forces, under the leadership of Indira Gandhi, captured the strategically crucial Siachen Glacier and made it part of the Jammu and Kashmir region.

    Another of the great achievements of Mrs. Gandhi was the detonation of nuclear bombs in 1971. Codenamed “Smiling Buddha“, the tests, although done for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, gave India the status of a “Nuclear power”. She knew the needs of a growing country as large as India and had the nerve to make the bold decision to conduct the tests despite the fear of sanctions imposed by the United States and other Western countries. I think “Smiling Buddha” paved the way for the Indian Government to carry on the much-required second round of nuclear explosions under “Operation Shakti” in 1998.

    Despite these aforementioned magnificent accomplishments, Mrs. Gandhi had her share of debacles. The biggest one was that of the storming of Golden Temple in 1984 under Operation Bluestar. This was one such mishap for which India had to pay dearly. In my view, no other historical event was as ghastly as this operation. While I do agree that it was imperative to flush out the terrorists from the holy shrine and maintain the sanctity of the temple, I would disagree with the way it was carried out. More than that, I would challenge the “real intent” of this unfortunate operation.

    Several open and unanswered questions strike me as I ponder on the intricacies of Operation Blue Star. Why was the attack carried out on the Sikh religious day commemorating the martyrdom of the fifth Guru Arjan Dev Ji? Didn’t the “Indira administration” know that there would be thousands of pilgrims inside the complex? Who is responsible and accountable for the innocent lives lost? Were there any negotiations carried out with the terrorists and if so, what was the scope and level of those negotiations? Could a different strategy similar to the one carried out during Operation Black Thunder be used to get rid of the terror elements residing inside the temple? Could a complete blockade of food, water, and electricity work? These questions will continue to haunt our “secular” country till justice is served.

    A few days back, I got to know about the Soviet launched “Operation Kontakt”. This operation aimed to provide concocted and falsified documents to the then Indian government run by Mrs. Gandhi about the support of Pakistan and the CIA given to the separatists. Although I am convinced that Pakistan supplied weapons and funds to the Khalistan movement, the intent of the above mentioned Soviet operation was to malign the Pakistani administration and the CIA and to exaggerate and amplify the urgency of carrying out the operation “impetuously”. Blue Star was executed without proper thought and to hurt the very “Psych” of the entire Sikh community. One of the consequences of this assault was that the moderate and educated Sikhs who were critic of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale also turned against Indira Gandhi and the state of India. It took several years for the Sikh community to get back into the fold and integrate once again into the Indian society.

    I will now touch upon another contentious event that was undertaken under the “brinkmanship” of Mrs. Gandhi. Emergency was imposed by Indira from 1975 to 1977 and it went on for 21 months. I strongly believe that a country as complicated as India needs an “iron grip” to govern its massive, “uncontrolled” and “untamed” population. The emergency period brought with it some of the very instrumental and positive changes in our society. Busses and trains ran on time, work became ethical and people reported on time. Slums were eradicated and cities were beautified. There was a sense of discipline all over the country. However, there were some nefarious aspects attached to that period as well. A censorship was imposed on the press and it was instructed to toe the line or face the consequences. Press is one of the pillars of a democratic society and for any nation to become a champion of secularism and liberal values, freedom of its media houses is vital.

    During the emergency, thousands of opponent leaders were put behind the jails and their voices subdued. Men, including those of old age, were dragged from the buses and sterilized forcefully. In my opinion, there is a fine line that separates governing a country by the rule of law and curbing the freedom of speech of people. Whether the Emergency was good or bad remains a matter of debate but one thing is certain. It remains one of the most controversial eras of Indian history spearheaded by Mrs. Gandhi.

    One can recall Indira Gandhi as a tyrant, a decisive leader, and even an incarnation of “Durga”, but unquestionably not a “Gungi Gudiya”.

  • The “Dark side” of Canada

    “The world needs more Canada” was the phrase I used to see on one of the walls of the Indigo Bookstore located close to my home in Toronto. The “Great white north” is regarded as one of the world’s most immigrant-friendly countries. People from all over the world move to this North American country to find “greener pastures”. But does this aforementioned slogan hold true in contemporary times? I think it does not. Once ranked among the top five best countries in the world to live a high quality of life, Canada today does not find a place even among the top 15 countries. Its cities, once considered some of the cleanest places around the globe, have plummeted in their rankings to be overtaken by European and Australian cities.

    Canada, a G-7 member, faces some insurmountable challenges, which if not addressed, will blotch the country’s reputation as one of the leading democracies in the world. Immigrants and international students are already getting disillusioned from the dim opportunities provided by the world’s second largest country. Immigration is one of the key drivers of the Canadian economy. If the nation does not gets its house in order, it will certainly discourage the people who want to call Canada their home and the country will lose this valuable “human capital” to other competing countries in Europe and Oceania. In my view, two overwhelming issues facing Canada are:

    The plight of the Indigenous people: The true strength of a country is not only reflected in its GDP or its per capita income but in its ability to treat all its citizens equally. Has Canada succeeded in treating all its citizens equally on one platform? The answer is a categorical no. It is usually believed that if you want to subdue a community and instill fear and guilt in its members, you kill their capacity to think. Then you can manipulate them and cause them to behave and act in a manner as per your vested interests and wishes. That is exactly what the country that projects itself as an “epitome of liberal values” has done to millions of Indigenous peoples.

    For over a century, the First Nations peoples have been subjected to marginalization and discrimination. With most of their population already being decimated, these people have been deprived of the right to their land. The systemic mechanism of violence against these “culturally rich” communities has caused inter-generational trauma, especially among its youth. The root of the injustice done to them stems from the Residential school system that started in the 1960s. Indigenous children were forcefully taken away from their families and placed in these schools run by the Christian churches and the Canadian government.

    The purpose of these schools was not to impart quality education to these “unfortunate children” or to open doors of opportunities for them, but it was to convert them to Christianity and to “forcefully” align them with the European culture. The injustice done to these children did not just end there. The deplorable conditions of these schools caused diseases, starvation, and malnutrition to its pupils. Medical experimentation was performed on them without anesthesia. Many of these students eventually lost their lives. The horrors of these residential schools have mentally and physically damaged the indigenous peoples and continue to haunt them to this day.

    Today these “real natives” of Canada outnumber other communities in incarceration and in unemployment. They have limited access to education and healthcare, causing further trauma to them. It is not only the Canadian government’s assault on their belief system and on their way of life, it is also an assault on their languages as well. In my view, the programs that allow these indigenous languages to develop lack in their efficacy and intent. This is evident from the fact that many of these languages today face extinction. These languages should not only be nurtured but should be given the status of official languages of Canada.

    There is an argument that asserts that the indigenous peoples do not integrate with the mainstream and as a result face discrimination. I would disagree and counter-argue that how can you integrate a community facing exploitation and mental torture every single day of their lives? How do you integrate a community which knows that the police, which is meant to safeguard their rights is itself an instrument that causes injustice and injury to them? How do you assimilate a section of society whose thousands of women are kidnapped and murdered without any justice served to them? What consolation can be given to those mothers whose newborn babies are “snatched” from them on the day they are born and put in foster care?

    The hands of the Canadian administration are strained in the blood of these innocent Indigenous lives and until this nation redresses these grave issues and brings the perpetrators to books, it cannot truly become a great nation.

    Rampant Crime and Homelessness: Tim Hortons located near my place used to be a 24*7 outlet until two years ago when it started to shut down its doors at 11:00 PM. One day, out of curiosity, I asked one of their employees the reason for the change of this operating schedule. I was appalled to know what he replied. Around midnight, a homeless with a knife in his hand broke the glass window and ran away. Out of safety for its staff members, the management decided and changed its operating hours.

    Around 3400 Km west of Toronto is Calgary, a cosmopolitan city where I had an opportunity to live for four months. What came as a shock to me was that the liquor stores in the city lock their doors from the inside out of fear of the homeless and druggist people who would thrash into the store, brazenly shoplift bottles of liquor and run away. These aforementioned incidents are not one-off events that happen once in a blue moon. Watch CP24, the local news channel of Toronto and there won’t be a single day when you will not hear news about stabbing or gun violence across the country.

    Since the last decade, crime has become uncontrolled and opened its fangs across Canada. Gone are the days when people used to stay out and even travel late at night using public transportation. I firmly believe that homelessness and criminal activity are entwined with each other. Homeless people are usually disoriented, lack a purpose in their lives, and therefore, prone to take the horrendous path of crime. Unfortunately, it seems there are hundreds of thousands of such people across the major cities of this nation.

    Crime also stems from extremism. Since the last few decades, Canada has become a safe heaven for terrorists. I do understand that it is an individual’s right to express his opinions without any fear of backlash, but things take a different turn when this “right to free speech” becomes violent. Canada is one such country where this right to free speech is routinely misused. To make things worse, politicians, especially from the ruling Liberal party, have a record of treating these extremist elements of society as their vote bank.

    In order for Canada to restore its place as the most peaceful, safe, and just country in the world, it needs to accept and overcome these formidable challenges. These are, in my opinion, a black mark on the national image of this otherwise great country.

  • Should beef and pork meat be banned in India?

    “Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas” is a slogan launched by the ruling BJP Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It lays emphasis on inclusive growth, a growth in which every Indian is part of and benefits from. It envisions a progress model for the country in which all its citizens, irrespective of their caste, creed, language or religion get empowered. I think that the root of such kind of an inclusive growth has its foundation entrenched in tolerance towards one another and an appreciation of our unique way of life. Have we reached that level of success where we truly believe in the diversity of our nation? I don’t think we have, at least not yet.

    A few days back, I stumbled upon an article that showcased that a 44 years old man was assaulted and his shop vandalized on the suspicion that he was selling cow meat at his butchery. I was even more shocked to know that some reports covering this went ahead and stated that the meat has gone to a forensic lab to determine if the meat was indeed from cow or beef. I strongly opine that in a secular country like ours, everyone has a right to eat whatever they want. No one has any authority to question what we sell or consume as part of our lifestyle.

    If we go back to our mythological scriptures, we could find references that meat eating was prevalent in the society of those times. The great epic of Mahabharata mentions many instances of Pandavas consuming meat. The advent of the Mughals and later the Britishers introduced their cuisine to the Indian cuisine. Even though the Mughals came from outside and most of the Indian Muslims were converted during Mughal era, they eventually became inseparable part of our Indian society. They embraced our culture and played a vital role in transforming our society into the multifaceted and multidimensional society.

    I am a critique of many policies and wrongdoings of my adopted country, Canada, but I think there is one thing that India can learn from this North American country. It is an appreciation for all walks of life and all kinds of lifestyles and it holds true when it comes to our right to consume any kind of food that we want. In a country as diverse as India, there should not be any “ban” on any kind of food, may it be beef or pork. I do understand that many religions prescribe dietary regulations on its adherents. In Islam, eating pork is prohibited and in Hinduism, eating beef is forbidden. Things take a different turn when both the communities live together and share a common habitat.

    There is an argument given that if pork is banned in Pakistan and gulf countries, beef should not be allowed to sell or consumed in “Hindustan”, a country with a majority Hindu population. I do not buy this line of thought and would argue that the aforementioned countries are Islamic nations and not democracies. India, on the other hand is the world’s largest democracy, and one of the most secular nations in the world. In a country like ours, where all religions co-exist, one must have tolerance and appreciation for all kinds of cuisines, irrespective of whether it is beef or pork. Like religion, food is also a personal choice of an individual.

    Another argument proffered is that in order for peace to prevail between the majority and minority communities, both should respect each other’s “religious sentiments”. This means the Hindus should not eat pork and Muslims should not eat beef. This again is a faulty argument. I adamantly believe that for a society to truly become secular, there should be freedom to market and consume all sorts of cuisines that are part of a cultural or a religious community. If inhabitants of Goa, or North eastern Indian states consume beef, they should be freely allowed to do so. The same stands true for the consumption of pork.

    I think that Mr. Modi is an able prime minister and is committed to the integrity of the country, but I firmly think that it is the fanatical organizations thriving under him that spew venom on the minorities. It is them who indulge in hooliganism. It is them who, instead of taking the path of laws and courts, believe in “mobocracy”. They torment ordinary people earning their livelihood by selling beef without realizing that India is the fourth largest beef exporter in the world. That, is what I call hypocrisy. The ruthless assault and “crusade” of the “Saffron brigade” on an individual’s freedom to choose what he wants to eat must end.

    For India to become an epitome of secularism, the country needs to shun its religious bigotry at all levels of governance and allow its citizens to pursue their lifestyles to the fullest. This without any doubt includes giving everyone a choice and freedom of what they want to eat.

  • Why is the idea of “Khalistan” becoming irrelevant?

    Sikhs are one of the most industrious people on the planet. Whether it is India, Canada, Australia, United States or Kenya, the community has played a pivotal role in nation building of the country where they have resided in. From the point of view of India, Sikhs spearheaded the “Green revolution” movement that consequently made the country not only self-reliant in food but also became an exporter of food grains. They transformed the fertile land of Punjab into the bread basket of India. Traditionally, Sikhs were mainly associated with fields like agriculture, transportation, and food businesses. Today, you can find Sikhs excelling in and at the helm of all fields and walks of life.

    From Word Bank president to Air Chief Marshall, to Prime minister to prominent writer and to the election commissioner of India, Sikhs have made an inedible mark in the professions that they have been engaged in. Because of their enterprising nature, one will hardly find a Sikh begging on the streets. Because of the spirit that the tenth master, Guru Gobind Singh Ji inculcated in them, Sikhs have become a synonym with “Chardi Kala”. With less than two percent of the Indian population, the community has contributed immensely to the economical growth of India. Their unwavering and tireless commitment to social service is admired all across the world.

    Like any other community residing in a country, Sikhs too have their grievances with the Indian government. In my view, one of the darkest chapters in the Indian history was Operation Bluestar, or the storming of Golden temple by the Indian Armed Forces. Whether there was a better way to flush out the terrorists from the temple is a discussion for another time. What I truly believe is that the idea of Khalistan has lost its sheen and has become irrelevant, especially in the contemporary times.

    The murder of the pro-Khalistan leader, Hardeep Singh Nijjar has brought the movement to the limelight and has created a diplomatic row between India and Canada. Canada claimed that agents of Indian government were behind the assassination while the Indian side declined the allegation asking for proof. The dissention between the two democratic countries reached its pinnacle in decades. Eventually, the report by the inquiry committee set up by the Canadian government stated that India is not behind the murder.

    Khalistan movement was at its peak in the 1980’s when the Indian state of Punjab went through an unrest. There was an ideological divide between the Hindus and Sikhs with Sikhs claiming that they are fighting to uphold their identity. Since then, especially in the 1990’s, the demand for Khalistan declined considerably and the state has returned to normalcy. The two communities live in peace and harmony. This is unlike what the pro Khalistan supporters falsely disseminate from foreign lands that Punjab is experiencing a revival in the creation of separate homeland for Sikhs. This is far from the truth and not a ground reality. In fact, one of the major reasons for the Khalistan movement to fade and decline in Punjab was the disillusionment of Sikhs themselves towards the separatists elements.

    Nonsensical people like Gurpatwant Singh Pannun regularly appeal to the Sikh soldiers serving in the Indian armed forces that they should not fight for India. Does he even knows that the Sikh regiment is the most decorated regiments in the Indian Army? With eighty two gallantry decorations post independence, the regiment has played a significant role in all wars that India has fought. Does he knows that the current Chief of Indian Air Force is a Sikh? Is Pannun even aware of the existence of KJS Dhillon, a decorated Indian army officer who played an instrumental role in curbing the insurgency in the Kashmir Valley. Outside the realm of defense, is Pannun even conscious of the fact that the Pioneer behind the liberalization of the Indian economy was Dr. Manmohan Singh, a Sikh?

    The Khalistan movement today is mostly alive among the “old generation” people who migrated to the western countries, mainly to Canada in the late 1970’s and 1980’s. The youth and the younger generation, especially living in India, have fully integrated with the country. They have become a constitutive part of the Indian growth story and have become beneficiaries of the nations progress. Today, one can see dynamic Sikh youth contributing towards nation building efforts and safeguarding the sovereignty of the country. One can find young people from the community ubiquitously working in Information technology sector, in scientific fields, in management, and in the government sector all across India.

    There is a wider consensus and awareness among Sikhs that the Khalistan movement was supported by Pakistan. It was Pakistan that wanted to make it even with India for breaking it up in 1971 war and liberating Bangladesh. It was Pakistan that spewed venom of hatred and manipulated the Sikhs to embark on a path of devastation. It was Pakistan that funded the Khalistan movement and supplied weapons to the terror organizations operating within the Indian state of Punjab. Let us contemplate hypothetically that Khalistan does gets created in the current Indian state of Punjab. Every new born country needs support of its allies to develop especially in its early stages. Does Pakistan, a struggling state dependent on foreign aid for its own survival capable of aiding Khalistan? I firmly believe it is not.

    The great religion of Sikhism has its roots that transcends beyond the boundaries of Indian and Pakistani states of Punjab. From Patna Sahib to Hazoor Sahib and to Hemkunt Sahib, its historical origins can be traced all across India. Sikhs also have a rich cultural association with the Indian capital, Delhi, which hosts many sacred pilgrimage sites such as Gurdwara Sheesh Ganj, and Gurdwara Bangla Sahib. The strong cord between India and Sikhs cannot be broken by nefarious designs of a malicious enemy state.

    I firmly believe that perpetrators of the heinous anti -Sikh riots should be brought to books and justice served. I also think that the current Indian government should imbibe a policy of a more inclusive growth towards nation building. Merely propagating the agenda of “Hindutva” to gain political mileage wont be beneficial to the multifaceted Indian society. The commemoration of Martyrdom of Guru Gobind Singh’s son’s as “Veer Bal Diwas” on 26th December is a welcome move.

    I am of an opinion that as we move from one generation to the next, the idea of Khalistan would loose its grip and relevance among the young ambitious Sikhs who view India as a platform where they can launch their successful careers and grow with the growth of the country. They are and will realize that extremism in all its forms should be shunned and a liberal approach towards social cohesion embraced.

  • Why I support the “Agniveer” scheme?

    I staunchly believe that when a person joins the armed forces, it is not only him who lives in the army, it is the army that lives within him. It flows through the veins and the blood of the person for the rest of his life. In one of my recent articles, I championed the idea that Army service should be made mandatory in India. The ongoing India-Pakistan conflict has brought the contentious “Agniveer” scheme to the forefront again. Many, especially in the opposition parties, believe that this scheme should be abolished. While I do respect their point of view, I wholeheartedly champion the Agniveer scheme and clearly envisage its immense benefits to both individual growth and national progress.

    The foremost rational against the Agniveer is that it will create unemployment among the youth since the scheme is only valid for four years and does not provides long term job security. I would argue that on the contrary to the aforementioned point, the Agniveer scheme will open new doors of employment for the “Agniveers”. Having credentials of serving in the armed forces is one of the strongest credentials one can have on their resume. We have seen that many officers in the armed forces take a hiatus from their service and pursue higher education. For those completing their full service and retiring form the forces join as guides and mentors in various corporations and educational institutes. Likewise, the Agniveers can also capitalize on their tenure in the armed forces to find suitable employment elsewhere after graduating from the scheme.

    To build up on my argument, I would like to state that under the Agniveer Scheme, Government has made provisions to train these young minds in various vocational streams like electricians, barbers, washermen, etc. This training will undoubtedly assist the Agniveers to navigate their career paths post their service in the armed forces. The scheme provides a platform for the already unemployed youths to give four “fruitful” years to the military service and then build on that experience in their later lives. The scheme also provides a podium for the disoriented and dejected youth of the country to find a purpose in their lives. The training they get in the forces can add a definitive meaning to their professional lives and provide a direction to them. Many state governments like that of Haryana, and Assam have already stepped in and announced 10% reservations in their police force for the graduates of the scheme.

    Critics of the scheme also assert that it does not provides pension and long term monetary benefits. I ,on the contrary, argue that the priceless experience they gain from their service in the armed forces will eventually help them financially in the long term. The people joining the Agniveer program are between the age group of 17 – 23. How many young minds of the country get an opportunity to start their careers and earn at this early stage of their lives? The categorical answer is not many. The government has already committed a lump sum amount of around 12 Lakh Indian rupees to the people retiring from the Agniveer scheme. In my view, it is a decent amount of money one can earn especially in their nascent years.

    Efforts are already underway to ensure that “Quality” of the service provided by these Agniveers is maintained and is at par with the services provided by regular armed forces personal. This is being done by providing the same level and standards of training to the aspirants of the scheme as one receives if he joins the army through the regular mode of entry. While I do agree that fiscal astuteness does plays a role in formulating schemes and policies like the Agniveer, but I firmly believe in what Lieutenant General KJS Dhillon said that, unlike other professions, the balance sheet of an armed forces personal is measured in life and death. Serving in the Army is one of the most noble occupations in any country. More than any budgeting or financial planning, it is the unamputated spirit of a solider that matters. Agniveer creates that spirit in the aspiring youth of the country.

    Besides the aforesaid benefits at an individual level, I think that the scheme will have immense societal advantages too. It will nurture civic sense and a sense of belonginess among the Agniveers. They will become responsible citizens of the country and will boost their patriotism. The youth graduating from the program can act as a second line of defense in wake of any internal or external crises that country might face. Agniveer scheme is one of the most constructive schemes orchestrated by the central government towards nation building.

    I would have serious reservations about the Agniveer scheme had it compromised on the recruitment of Indian army officers through the National Defense Academy (NDA) or the Officers Training Academy (OTA). The primary focus of this scheme is bridging the shortfall of soldiers in the armed forces, giving unemployed youth an opportunity to build their careers while serving the nation and consequently pruning the national defense budge.

    Every governmental policy or a scheme undergoes iterations and evolves in time. Agniveer scheme is no exception. It will undergo evolutions with the passage of time. As the Chief of Army Staff, Upendra Dwivedi commented in one of his interviews that the scheme is still under observation and will be assessed once the first batch of “Agniveers” complete their tenure in 2026. I would align my thought with that and state that the Defense forces will reap the full advantages of this scheme over the time. I also strongly feel that it is an instrumental and a promising initiative to boost the capabilities of our Armed forces and should not be scrapped.

  • Why English should be preferred over native languages in our schools?

    I spent three fruitful years of my life in the Indian city of Hyderabad. One of my most cherished memory is that of making friends with Rahul, a “local” Telegu. I vividly remember that when I first met him, I introduced myself in Hindi. He could not comprehend my words in “one of our national languages” and we had to switch to English. Since then, English has been the only mode of communication between me and my Telegu friends. This is not pertinent only to the state of Andhra Pradesh or any particular region within India. One would experience the same in many parts of the nation, especially when we travel beyond northern part of the country.

    English was introduced to the Indian subcontinent by the Britishers who, for the purpose of administrating our large and diverse country, recruited Indians with the know how of their language. Since then, it has percolated to every strata of the Indian society. It has become the primary language of not only our educational institutes but has permeated into our professional lives. One cannot imagine to get a good well paying job without having an ability to speak, read and write in this “foreign language”, as many Indians label it. The question that comes to my mind is, should English be the preferred language in schools and educational institutes in the country? I strongly believe it should be.

    While I do have a great reverence for the local languages or our “mother tongue”, I think it does not binds us in a common strand as English does. It has become historically evident that people from many Indian states won’t accept Hindi as their language, especially in the southern parts of the country. One of the foremost reasons for that is the natural inclination or what I call as an emotional attachment towards their language. Tamil, as an instance, is one of the oldest languages in the world and is renowned for its literary depth. The same goes with other languages like Marathi and Bengali.

    There is an argument that since many European countries like France, Netherlands, and Belgium teach students in their own native language, why should India not make Hindi as its primary language in its schools. I think it is a flawed argument and does not takes the colonial history of these countries into account. Wherever these colonizers went and established their control, they spread their language among the populace of the “ruled” country. The colonized countries adopted the language of the colonizers and it became one of their official languages. Post independence, when the migrants from these “occupied” countries reached their former colonial countries to bridge the gap of shortage of workers, they brought with them the same language to their new lands. There was not much diversity when it comes to the language, at least within the geographical area of that country thereby creating a linguistical homogeneity.

    India, on the other hand, with twenty two officially recognized languages and more than 270 mother tongues, is one of the most multilingual nations on the planet. Albeit this heterogeneity gives India a cultural depth, it has “failed” to create a common strand that binds our massive, multifaceted population together. English, as we have seen historically, acted as a “glue” to bring our diverse countrymen on a common platform.

    In my view, the real growth story of India accelerated after the liberalization of the economy in 1991 under the able leadership of Dr. Manmohan Singh. One of the primary reasons for the foreign investment to pour into the country from United States was our large “employment ready” middle class English speaking population. Indians, with their savvy skills, especially in speaking, reading and writing in the English language paved the way for the establishment of ubiquitous call centers and then later Information technology “back offices” across the nation. Indian employees became a de facto with “white color” professional jobs providing services to the corporates based across the Western world.

    Another argument on the side of having Hindi as the primary language in our schools is that many countries without a colonial history like Japan and Germany teach their students in their native languages. I believe this rational is incomplete and fractured as well. We need to take into consideration that the aforementioned countries have a very strong research output and most of their scientific research is published in their own languages. On the contrary, how many research articles have been published in Hindi or lets say Punjabi or Tamil? Unfortunately, very few if none. A vast majority of the research published in India is done in English language.

    Another perspective in this context is that many non English speaking countries are now establishing business schools that impart business education in English language. They cater to students from around the world and are producing the next generation of “Global professionals”, who can manage multinational corporations in a multilingual environment. This cannot be done in their vernacular language. It can only be done in the language that the corporate world speaks which is English. Like Dollar is the currency of the world, English is the language of the world.

    While I reiterate that I have utmost respect for the native Indian languages and I also agree that it is imperative to learn these languages in order to have a sound understanding of our history, culture and traditions, I steadfastly believe that we need a language that can catapult our youth to the global stage and strengthen our “say” in the international arena. English is the instrument to achieve that goal.

  • Three historical mistakes by India from Military perspective

    The fate of any nation depends more than the grave mistakes that it makes rather than the correct decisions that it takes. While I am a proponent of peace, I do think that sometimes it is the military might that is required to establish stability and peace in the region. We have fought four wars with our neighboring Pakistan, three out of which have been over Kashmir. India, in my opinion, has made three historical miscalculations of great proportions that still continues to haunt it to this day.

    The first was the return of 93,000 prisoners of war (POW’s) back to Pakistan after the 1971 War and liberation of Bangladesh. This was one of the largest surrender by any army after the surrender of Nazi forces in Stalingrad in 1943. Undoubtedly, a decisive victory for the Indian Armed forces, the war brought back the lost pride from the 1962 Indo-China War. Playing the same flute of peace to the world, India, under the Shimla agreement, agreed to return back the captured Pakistani soldiers. Disregarding the reality that these “battle hardened” soldiers could be thrown back into the circulation and could be integrated back into the “Pakistani War machine” operating in Kashmir, India made a fatal misjudgment. What we could have done at this pivotal moment was to negotiate with the Pakistani administration over the Pakistani Occupied Kashmir or POK. We should have returned these prisoners but in exchange of Pakistan agreeing to give away at least some of the critical positions that it holds in the POK region to us, if not the entire occupied territory.

    The second is the return of Haji Pir to Pakistan after the 1965 conflict. Albeit not a conclusive victory like the 1971 war, the battle of Haji Pir was a major win for our Armed forces. The re-capture of Haji Pir gave India a strategic and a military advantage to the armed forces since it has been a main point for the insurgents to infiltrate into the Kashmir Valley. The occupation of Haji Pir gave the Indian armed forces control of the Uri-Pooch highway, thereby cutting off the a major supply line for the terrorists to get into the Indian territory and operate from there. I have a deep reverence for Lal Bahadur Shastri, who was the Prime minister during this war and when the Tashkent agreement was signed, but I think Shastri made a ghastly mistake by reaching a status quo with Pakistan.

    The third mistake made by the Indian polity was our “inertia” in acting swiftly during the 1947 Indo-Pakistan conflict. Recapitulating what I mentioned in my previous article, had we sent in our army quickly or had Nehru not gone to knock the doors of United Nations, we might have resolved the Kashmir problem once and for all. The Pakistani army was already on the run, and we could have pushed them further consequently capturing a large area of what we call as POK today. Given the reality that none of the countries were nuclear equipped at that time, there was no threat of the conflict going beyond the confines of a conventional war. I also believe that had Sardar Patel tackled this conflict, we would have the entire Kashmir as an integral part of India today.

    While I do salute the Indian armed forces for their valor in each of these three wars, I believe these terrible blunders committed by the feeble Indian administration continue to echo to this day.

  • 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 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.