Site Title

Tag: news

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Musings on the Indian Educational system

    “Shiksha Parmo Dharma” is a saying ingrained in the Hindu and Buddhist religions. It literally means that Education is the foremost reality and duty. The growth and development of any nation depends on its youth. I would take a step further and say that it is the “educated youth” that takes its country forward on the path of progress. With diverse religions, customs, traditions, languages, and cultures, India is one of the most “complicated” countries in the world. On the on hand, we have a burgeoning “tech savvy” workforce which has earned respect throughout the world and made a global mark, on the other hand, we still have a significant population that struggles to interpret simple text to carry on their day to day life.

    I firmly believe that the root of our country’s problems lie in our current educational framework. We need a revamp of our educational system. Although we have increased our literacy levels to 75%, it is still disproportionate when it comes to the female literacy rates which stands at around 66%. The challenge does not resides only with our “literate populace”, it also unfolds itself in how our educated youth compare viz-a-viz to the rest of the world, especially the advanced countries. Here are my two cents on how we can re-invent our educational institutes to create a competitive workforce.

    I vividly remember that when I was doing my masters degree from my alma mater back in 2003-2006, we had a subject called “Emerging trends in Information technology”. Ironical to its name, the subject was (at that time) updated in 1996 while it was being taught in 2003. In order to “march with the world shoulder to shoulder”, one of the first things we need to do is to make our syllabus relevant and contemporary. And it is not only one university that had an “outdated” course. This problem is pan India, especially in the rural parts of the country.

    Educators and teachers form the backbone of any educational system. They are mentors and act as architects of the future of the country’s youth. It is our educators who ignite the fire in the hearts of their students and lay the foundation of inquisitiveness. Considering the crucial role that they play in the development and nurturing of the “national talent” , it is pivotal for them to be on top of their specialized subjects. Unless educators are updated in their fields, they can never impart “quality” education to their students. Albeit there are many programs initiated by the government, both at the central level and the state level to upgrade the knowledge of these educationists, a lot more needs to be done, especially in the rural areas of the country.

    The purpose of any educational institute should be to foster original ideas among its disciples. There should be focus on imbibing creativity rather than promoting “rote learning”. The origination of creative ideas and hands on learning should be championed in the schools. Only when students develop a “creative mindset” can they solve real world problems. Another aspect is to incorporate entrepreneurship and a “start up mentality ” into the curriculum. Indian administration is already promoting innovation through national programs like “Make in India” initiatives. There is already a push towards “Atmanirbhar Bharat” or a self-reliant India. Innovation should be made an integral part of our universities. Our syllabi should embody and integrate the same principles and align itself with the national goals.

    There is a famous proverb that says that “if you teach a man, you teach a person, but if you teach a woman, you teach the whole family.” I do agree that India has made strides in eliminating illiteracy but we still face some serious challenges, especially at the rural level and when it comes to educating the Indian women. Same applies to our minorities, especially Muslims who still are largely living in destitution. In order to free the underprivileged sections of our society from the shackles of poverty and illiteracy, we need to bring education at their doorsteps. Inclusiveness is the key here. We need to reduce the “educational disparity” among our demographics. Unless we formulate an inclusive approach towards making India a highly “literate nation”, we can never achieve our goal of becoming a fully developed country.

    Having a literate population also has immense societal benefits. I strongly believe that a well aware and an educated person is less likely to be involved in anti national activities. Education makes a person sophisticated and career conscious. It “grooms” the mind of an individual and creates an appreciation towards other cultures, and religions. Our schools and educational institutes should stress more on national harmony.

    It is only literacy that can alleviate indigence and create a competent workforce and contribute towards nation building.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Three events that changed Indian history forever

    For any country, there are certain defining moments that change the course of its history. In my opinion, for India, there are three decisive events that not only changed its history but also altered the dynamics of its power and strength in the South Asian region. Although I do not agree with many policies of Congress party in general and that of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in particular , I strongly agree that there have been three events under the Congress government that changed the course of Indian history.

    The first is the nuclear test carried out on 18th May 1974 by the Congress government under the leadership of Mrs. Gandhi. The test was done under the garb of peaceful use of nuclear energy but some reports and experts assert that the test was done to give India minimum deterrence against China. India had lost 1962 war with China . China conducted its first nuclear test in 1967 and with Pakistan on one side and the nuclear armed China on another side, it became imperative for India to become “nuclear capable”. The test conducted in Pokhran located in the state of Rajasthan was the first one conducted by a non permanent member of United Nations thereby making India the sixth nuclear powered nation in the world. It does not matter if the test was meant for peaceful purpose or to develop nuclear deterrence against China, what matters is that India developed capability to channelize the nuclear energy to its benefit. This test paved the way for future research and development of nuclear energy. Two prominent figures who played a vital role in “Smiling Buddha”, as it was codenamed, were Homi Bhabha, also considered as the father of Indian nuclear program, and Raja Ramanna, who was also instrumental in weaponizing the nuclear energy for India.

    The second event was the liberation of Bangladesh by the Indian armed forces in 1971. There has not been a single event in the world history after World War – II where a nation was created by use of military might. The thirteen day war with Pakistan freed Bangladesh from the shackles of ethnic violence and discrimination perpetrated by the West Pakistan on the East Pakistan, as Bangladesh was called prior to 1971. It was not only a grand success of the Indian armed forces but it garnered reverence from around the world for India as a global emerging power to reckon with.

    The third moment was the Liberalization of Indian economy in 1991. India experienced a spiraling economical downfall after the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1989, mostly due to our reliance on the Soviet block for almost everything that is required to run a country. Under the leadership of P.V Narsimha Rao and the finance minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, India opened its economy to the western world, especially United States. The policies led to massive investments by United States in India which led to the spawning of call centers across the country. U.S and the western world capitalized on India’s large English speaking population that created thousands of well paid jobs thereby rescuing the country out of its economical predicament. This surge in the creation of “call center” jobs was just the beginning. The next wave of investment from the U.S into India focused on the Information Technology sector creating a plethora of technology related jobs. It changed the outlook of many Indian cities like Hyderabad, Bangalore, Pune, Mumbai and Delhi which transformed into “Tech hubs”. Innovation became a synonym of the Indian IT workforce. Indian professionals began travelling to the U.S thereby further enhancing the image of India from merely a country of snake charmers to a country with a large tech savvy population. Another outcome of this transformation was that it brought millions of Indians out of sheer poverty and destitute.

    Like any other country, India too had its share of unwise decisions and grave mistakes, but in my opinion, the aforementioned events changed the destiny of the country forever.

  • Major Gaurav Arya: Patriotism or Jingoism?

    I firmly believe that patriotism or love for one’s country is a great emotion. One should not ask what the country has given to him but what the person has given to the country. One should take pride in one’s country and cherish its great history and culture.

    There is however a fine line separating nationalism and jingoism. While nationalism or patriotism strengthens the country, both from internal and external foes, jingoism or what I sometimes call as “blind patriotism” can drift the thinking away from reality and rationality.

    I have faith in the Indian armed forces and take great pride in its capabilities to repulse any misadventure from Pakistan and China. I too have faith in the Indian foreign policy and its diplomatic weight. However, I cannot turn a blind eye on the ground reality. I refuse to let this “blind patriotism” create a fog in my mind and impair my thinking.

    I have been following Major Gaurav Arya’s You tube channel since a few years now and I do appreciate his insights on issues pertaining to defense and geopolitics. However, as I watch his videos more and more, I have now started to believe that he suffers from this Jingoism as well, at least to a certain extent. His thoughts are driven by this “blind patriotism” and do not take into account a holistic view of the actual situation.

    Lets take the recent Indo-Canadian diplomatic row over the growing footprint of Khalistan movement in Canada. Major’s analysis was driven mostly by emotions failing to take into account what the reality might be. Although I do agree that Khalistan movement has lost its relevance and Canada needs to take imperative steps to dismantle Khalistan stronghold, one should not paint an incorrect picture of the country thereby creating false impressions.

    During the Indo-Canadian row, Major Gaurav Arya, while lashing out at Canada stated that – “Canada ek bada sa Gaon hai”, implying that Canada is just like a big village. In another of his statements, he specified that we (India) have better armed forces, better diplomacy and more money than Canada. I was flabbergasted by his thoughts. Does he even fact check what he says? I am inclined to believe that he probably does not. Or if he does that, he makes these assertions just to create a false impression on his viewers or to get more likes on his videos. If Major wants to engage in “Khalistan bashing”, its his right to do so and express his opinion about it, but it should be done by dissecting and criticizing the Khalistan movement and the Canadian policies that allows it to perpetrate. It should not be done by creating a false image of a country or by disseminating lies. Oratory does has a mesmerizing effect on people and it seems it is working for him.

    Canada’s reality is a very different one from that of India. Unlike India, Canada does not have any border disputes with any country. India, on the other hand is sitting in one of the most dangerous regions in the world. Surrounded by nuclear armed enemies like Pakistan and China necessitates India to have a strong military. On diplomacy and foreign policy, Major is again wrong. Canada has played a vital role in various peacekeeping missions across the world from Suez canal crises to Rwanda crises to Balkan crises. It has played a crucial role in creating bridge between India and the western world after the Indian independence. The first nuclear test that India conducted under the able leadership of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1974 was done using “CIRUS” reactor which was made in Canada.

    On his fractured opinion that Canada is just like a big village, I would recommend he get his facts right by reading something about Toronto, which has evolved to become among the top five most economically powerful cities in North America. Even the country as a whole is highly industrialized with one of the highest research output in the world.

    While I do agree that it is important to take sides on issues concerning national security, I strongly disagree that one should undermine a nation with arguments that do not fall under the precinct of truth and actual reality. It is a universal adage that one should even respect his enemy and acknowledge its strengths, something that Major Gaurav Arya fails to do in his videos.