Site Title

Tag: politics

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Should there be mandatory Military service in India?

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Factors that led the Britishers to leave India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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