The Devil's Advocate

I, a Neo-Vedanta, write this article with a pure  polemical  intent to "stir up the pot".  I won’t pretend to be impartial or balanced. Liberal hypocrites shall find this hard to digest. Well anyways, I don't expect them to reason with me, considering how self-conceit they tend to be. Nor shall I mind being called "religio-fascist" ,"Nazi", "Semantic", "rotten". These, I consider are the words of a verbalist, most of who fall under the 'liberal' criteria. Liberals; if you find considerable reason in my arguments, go take a walk.If not, go take a walk. But that is precisely the point.It shall be fascinating to take on the hordes of loud-mouthed "liberals" . Most importantly, the criticism coming from within a community is much more effective than those coming from people outside the fold. This is because argument, however constructive they be, would tend to be construed as xenophobia or even outright communal. In a perfect liberal-secular society, this should not be the case and every argument, wherever it comes from, should be adjudged  on its innate worth. I shall also clarify beforehand that this article is not meant to malign or degrade any particular religion or person's sentiments. I only ask for an unbiased, intuitive - rationalist outlook. In this article, I take a stand against the impeachment of Muthalik from BJP. Yes, you read it right! now hold on the abuses until the end of this piece; if you shall have any.
There is no point in calling myself a rationalist if I do not take a stand against this fascist intimidation and violence and speak for the rights of the intimidated. But I would like you to see the bigger picture. Let one thing be clear.I am not defending Muthalik and/or his actions. I am merely stating that the media, along with the "Twitterati" overplayed his inclusion within the BJP.
Read this Q&A between a journalist and Muthalik.
Do you think that BJP or its voters support a `woman beater'?
See, the intention of pub attack, in Mangalore in 2009, was good, but the approach was bad. I admit my followers committed a mistake by assaulting women. Their intention was to bring our sisters on right track. In fact I have a lot of respect for my sisters.
Then why did you assault your "sisters"?
I was not involved personally in that attack. However, I was in jail for 15 days, as my name was intentionally included. That case is pending before the court and I am ready to follow its order. My expression of apology and regret did not get the same publicity that the attack got. In my opinion, pub attack was a minor incident compared to cases like Tandoori case, in which a woman was burnt by a Congress leader. See any newspaper on any day, and you will find at least one incident of violence against women. When AP MLA Akbaruddin Owaisi is fighting for Islam, why should not I for Hindutva?
On doing a quick 'googling' on Muthalik, we find a right-wing "extremist" ,so much so that he left RSS since he felt they were 'not defending Hindus from Muslim persecution'. India is not short of it's set of "extremists" , from varied backgrounds and religions. Considering India's history and it's demography, extremism had to crop up. Now that I have made my position clear by branding Muthalik under the category of 'extremist' ,I hope to get some restrain from critics. On poking deeper into Muthalik's life, we find an aggressor with a mild spot towards Hinduism, coupled with rising nationalist emotions. His claim for "respectable position in BJP" dwells from his hard struggle in justice towards Hindus and the protection of age old 'Sanskars'. He claims that BJP-A nationalist party, has benefited from his nationalist Hindu awareness among the middle-class. While he himself, along with his supporters have faced the ruthless lathis of police. 'Im a poor man", he claims. Now, with so much of an experience in his version of 'social justice' , he is undoubtedly entitled to  represent a party, let alone contest an election. The voter has an inherent right to reject this move by the party, by franchising their votes. It is undemocratic to not let a person contest a election, fuelled by mass protests in the social media; a space that represents only a single faction of society. It strikes me as a 'popular anarchic' move. Indian elections always hold much at stake. Hence, every party; small and big, each compromise in principles and ideologies for the 'coveted prize'. In an election fraught with around 30% candidates being charged with crimes ranging from corruption, murder, theft to rape; Muthalik's record seems normal to some extent. Moreover, the major difference I would like to highlighten is that unlike all these charged politicians, Muthalik acted out of selflessness. His actions were a reflection of certain ideology that he openly espouses. In a highly democratic and liberal society, it is imperative that people from varied ideologies learn to co-exist harmoniously. It is in this idea that  many Anti-nationalist or Anti-Social elements have been vigorously defended by the "liberal" media and their friends that show outward "sympathy". The recent example that comes to my mind is the opposition to the charges slapped on Kashmiri students for indicting an environment of 'hate' and 'polarisation'. On similar grounds Muthalik stands chaste and demure . Of course, I am not suggesting that he is pristine, upright or credulous. But in the present context, his expulsion lacks rectitude. For someone who has little tolerance towards prejudice and iniquity, I find it hard to digest the fact that the same media bluntly chooses to condemn extremely bigotry actions, on the other hand, it portrays negative propaganda about selective individuals. It is in this gross act of  partianship that fuels my anger. When the whole media was going berserk about the indictment, let me put before you the events that should have been making headlines on similar terms.
->Wife of Kerala professor whose hand was chopped off by extremists,for asking students to punctuate sentences containing the words "Mohammed" ;commits suicide.
-> Hapur Congress MLA publicly molests Nagma
-> Mirza Baig,convicted in German Bakery blast, Pune contests election on a party ticket.
-> Salman Khurshid makes critical remarks against Modi and EC, on an official visit abroad.
-> A Hindu priest is burnt alive in a temple, in Pakistan
-> Islamist maniacs declare 'no entry zone' for sections of other communities in a certain area of Tamil Nadu.
I am not referring to issues such as Crimea crisis or Pastorius trial. These are all Pan-Indian issues that have been conveniently ignored. But, in my experience as someone who relies heavily on Internet for information, these coverups are nothing new. The recent incident of Imraan Masood hate speech is a prime example. Many news channels tried to hide the incident under the carpet. It was only after social media savvy individuals like me, badgered them continuously, that the issue was given limited coverage. Masood's comments were 'beeped' out, on the other hand downplaying the incident by charging BJP of 'milking vote out of the controversy'. Much praise also goes to Rajat Sharma. But, as expected channels such as NDTV and CNN-IBN 'armtwisted' the case to give it a innocuous and gullible look. Compare it to a mis-guided,concoted tweet by Rajnath Singh that made headlines for a whole day, followed by a gruesome debate by Sardesai. So much for 'sense over sensationalism'.
Now many of you readers shall be pointing towards the 'neck-pushing' incident by SRS. In the first place, it was not Muthalik who assaulted the women drinking in the pub. Secondly, he profusely apologised for the 'untowed incident' which was conveniently blacked out by the media. His intentions were only meant to scare the girls into not hanging out in dangerous places such as pubs. At this point, many shall be wondering "What right does this Taliban have in imposing his principles?" . True, I too am on the same page. In this age of cosmopolitan and urban outlook, women's rights issues are paramount. But if one retracts his statements after the controversy, it is evident that Muthalik and his supporters are another fraction of people in India, who are out of touch with  present age and culture. Or that they seemingly ain't comfortable with the revolving changes, with untoward rise in women rape cases. Now that one thinks of it, their intimidation's is quite prevalent in society as well as in many of the girl's homes; attacked that day. But ours is  such a society that is  still has a highly conservative, semi-feudal setup . Hence, it is not wrong in saying that SRS actions although "nauseating" for a section of society, is upheld by considerable people.
Consider the case of Shahabuddin . He was four times Member of Parliament from Siwan, Bihar, with the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) party of Lalu Prasad Yadav, and 2-time MLA in the Bihar Vidhan Sabha (Legislative Assembly), he is currently serving a life sentence for kidnapping with intent to murder. He is also under trial in more than thirty criminal cases including eight of murder, twenty of attempted murder, as well as kidnapping, extortion.
In 2004, Shahabuddin's opponents were intimidated from campaigning even though he was in prison during the elections. Immediately after the election, which he won by a margin of 100,000 votes (16%), nine party workers of the nearest candidate, Om Prakash Yadav of Janata Dal (United), were found murdered, allegedly for daring to put up a credible fight.
He has been winning Lok Sabha elections from Siwan since 1996, prior to which he was elected twice to the Bihar Legislative Assembly (1990 and 1995). Few opponents dare campaign publicly for fear; in addition, he is widely believed to have rigged many polling stations in the past.
In May 2007, Shahabuddin was found guilty in a case of "kidnapping with intent to murder", and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. This may mean that he would be unable to stand for any subsequent elections. But nonetheless, he still holds the position of member of parliament. Shahabuddin became extremely arrogant against the police and other bodies, slapping police officers and even shooting at them.
In March 2001 the police were executing a warrant on Mr. Manoj Kumar "Pappu", the president of the local RJD unit, when Shahabuddin objected and slapped the arresting officer Sanjiv Kumar,while his men beat up the police. The police then re-grouped in strength and a pitched battle was launched on Shahabuddin's house, with help being sought from other police units in the vicinity, including one from Uttar Pradesh.
In the extensive fire exchange that followed, two policemen and eight others were killed,with three AK-47s and other weapons being found near several of the deceased. Shahabuddin and his men escaped, setting fire to three police jeeps, and firing continuously to cover their movements. Neither Shahabuddin nor Manoj Kumar could be arrested. After this episode, several more cases were filed against Shahabuddin; however he could not be arrested.
By the early 2000s, Shahabuddin was running a parallel administration in Siwan, holding "kangaroo courts" to settle family and land disputes, fixing doctors’ consultancy fees, and arbitrating on marital problems.
In late 2003, eight months before the 2004 general elections, Shahabuddin was arrested on charges of kidnapping a CPI(ML) worker in 1999, who was then never seen again. Instead of staying in prison, he managed to get shifted to the Siwan hospital on medical grounds, and where a complete floor was set aside for him. Here he conducted meetings organizing his elections, and anyone could walk in to meet him, subject to checks by his bodyguards. Every afternoon at four, he held audience for his subjects, who arrived to meet their Saheb (boss), and to get their problems resolved.One petitioner turned out to be a policeman seeking a promotion; Sahabuddin called up the police bosses on his mobile phone and arranged things on the spot. For another petitioner, he called up a minister in Delhi. Another petitioner, wishing to resolve a land dispute, brought him a rifle as a gift, right there in his prison.
There is almost no sign of the opposition campaigning in the constituency. One villager, pleading that his identity should not be disclosed, said: "Do you want to get us hanged by telling you what we feel about elections here and who we would like to vote for?"
In fact, several phone booth owners and other businessmen were killed after putting up banners or posters of opponents.
A few days before the election, the Patna High Court directed the state government to ensure that Shahabuddin was properly jailed, instead of the hospital floor.
During the elections, largescale rigging and booth capturing were reported from as many as 500 polling stations and re-polling was ordered by the autonomous election conducting body, Election Commission of India.
When the election results were announced, it turned out that although Shahabuddin won comfortably, his nearest Janata Dal (United) opponent, Om Prakash Yadav had managed to get two lakh votes, about 33.5% of the electorate. In the 1999 elections, JD(U) had polled only 7.5% of the vote, so this was a huge gain for them.
Within days of these results being announced, nine party workers of the Janata Dal (United) were killed, and a large number were beaten up; it is widely believed that this was a retaliation for daring to put up a credible fight.
Harendra Kushawaha, the mukhia (chief of Panchayat or village council) of the Bhanta Pokhar village where Om Prakash Yadav had a strong majority, was shot dead at a government office.
After several bullets were fired at Om Prakash Yadav's house, the civil authorities assigned him a posse of eight armed policemen as bodyguards.
Well after the elections, a case was filed against Shahabuddin that he had lied in his electoral declaration; whereas he had said he had been named in 19 cases, at the time, there were 34 cases pending against him.
Despite being the elected representative of the region, he was barred from entering Siwan for many months in 2005, since he was perceived as a security threat.
In April 2005, a police raid led by S.P. Ratna Sanjay with the support of D.M. C. K. Anil on Shahabuddin's house in Pratappur revealed illegal arms such as AK-47s, and other military weaponry authorized for possession only by the army, including night-vision goggles, Laser-guided guns, etc. Some of the arms had the markings of Pakistan ordnance factories, and the then Chief of Police (DGP), Bihar, D.P. Ojha alleged in a report that Shahabuddin had ties with the Pakistan intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Subsequently, eight non-bailable warrants were issued for arresting Shahabuddin. The RJD supremo Lalu backed him, targeting the police for "opression on minorities". Dance of democracy, just a second; Dance of Indian democracy, I must say.
His party was part of the United Progressive Alliance headed by Manmohan Singh, and clearly he had considerable clout. Thus, although he was living in his official assigned quarter in Delhi, and attending parliament, the Delhi police and a special team sent from Bihar could not arrest him for over three months. However, a team from Bihar, without informing anyone, was finally able to arrest him from his official residence in New Delhi in November 2005. Subsequently, he was refused bail by the Supreme Court of India, where he was asked at one point:
By virtue of being an MP, are you entitled to keep these weapons, including a night vision device, when even the police, CRPF and other security agencies do not have it and only the army possesses it?
In March 2007, Magistrate V V Gupta in a Siwan court (running inside the prison) sentenced Mohammad Shahabuddin to two years imprisonment for the assault on the CPI-ML offices in Siwan on 19 September 1998. Shahabuddin and his armed supporters had bombed the premises and assaulted office secretary Keshav Baitha, who was brutally beaten up and suffered splinter injuries from the bomb blast. The court has also fined him Rs1,000 (about USD 20. Indian fines follow antiquated laws, and are often very paltry in today's terms).
In May 2007, he was convicted of the abduction of the trader and CPI(ML) worker, Chhote Lal Gupta, in February 1999, who was never seen thereafter and is widely presumed to have been killed.While it could be established that Shahabuddin with his gang had kidnapped Chhotelal (an witness could identify him), the dead body was never recovered, so charges of murder could not be upheld. Justice Gyaneshwar Srivastava sentenced him to life imprisonment under Article 164 (abduction with intent to murder).The verdict has been challenged in Patna High Court; some of the points noted are that the conviction relied on a lone witness, who identified Shahabuddin in court, after a gap of seven years, without the benefit of a prior identification parade. Subsequently he has been convicted in a number of other criminal cases, including a ten years rigorous imprisonment for attempted murder on the then Superintendent of Police, S.K. Singhal. Meanwhile, other trials are progressing in eight other cases in Siwan where charges have been filed, these cover the following articles from the Indian Penal Code:
302 (murder),
307 (attempts to murder),
364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder),
365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person),
379 (punishment for theft),
147 (punishment for rioting),
148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon) and
324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
It should be noted that Sanjay Dutt; one who enjoys considerable support from the 'liberal and upper-class' elites, campaigned for Shahabuddin's wife against Om Prakash Yadav, a commoner. Yadav, along with his 'Aam Aadmi' suporters(Not the party) 'stuck out their' neck in defeating Lalu's notorious pick. I encourage readers to explore Yadav's story. Shahabuddin's impeachment is also a savvy reading. Let us focus on the present case.
Before proceeding further, these links are testament to my position :
http://indpaedia.com/ind/index.php/Criminals_in_politics:_India
http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/in-indian-politics-crime-pays/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
https://sites.google.com/site/awakeningtheindiaorg/about-us/criminal-charged-politicians-in-india
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/deep-focus/Its-criminal-how-Indians-vote/articleshow/29743590.cms
My case is simple, in some sense - We need to have an impartial, broad-based outlook in selecting politicians. Since, no politician, not even AK-49 is Mr. Clean. It all narrowes down to the question "How clean is the candidate?" or "How much beneficial is he/she is to the society?". Because, in India there is a general perception that "every politician has black spots".
I remember vividly on the day of Muthalik's expulsion,the self-annointed solicitor cum judge; Arnab, was grilling Muthalik on his show-The Newshour. Try as much as he may, Muthalik was snubbed without the opportunity of defence. The 'gavel had pounded the hardwood' in the courtroom of media, without as much as an utterance from the accused. In a country like India, where even terrorists such as Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab are provided a favourable passage for legal course, Muthalik should not treated like an untouchable. I guess "liberal dudes" are on the same page as me in conceiding that Muthalik was rebuffed in his morality as well as legal judgement. If not, then you must be in that new category making rounds - "neo-liberals" or "liberal-sychopaths" , something that I prefer to call. If he is perceived 'Far-Right' and therefore 'untouchable' why is no-one making tantrums about Far-Left Maoists from JNU and Far-Right from Aligarh university in the NCERT board, planning commission and advisory boards. These people have much more extreme ideologies and opinions; that they are enforcing with the extreme power granted to them. I guess being educated is cause enough to not be doubted, in this country. Don't even get me started on all the corrupt and dishonest politicians in the flocked in the 'system'. Since the charge is on "extremism" and "abuse" , Muthalik is a David; in the system of Goliaths, who go largely unhindered; even with all their selfish ambitions. The media is often mute in these cruel subjects. In a political system that is overflowing with dacoits, rapists, murderers, casteists, mafia lords etc. Muthalik, one who enjoys tremendous support from of his actions, by the large section of old age society, it is unfar and unconstitutional to target a self-declared nationalist; who till this day acts selfless; in the preview of his ideology. It is not wrong to say that he has braved many a precarious situations to rescue womenfolks from the dangerous "Love-Jihad" . He  along with the VHP were instrumental in thwarting a "duping racket" that fooled women into higher opportunities, only to be sold off in Dubai as slaves. But these applaudable actions have been completely ignored by the media; hence the misconception about Muthalik & Co. among the general public. It is left to another debate whether his ideology suits the present generation. In his defence, Muthalik said, breaking down, "I have not made any property, could not attend my father's funeral and have not been able to pay attention to my ailing mother. I have led a clean life...I don't know why are you treating me like this. What mistake have I committed? It is not like we murdered someone" . Of course, in my view, no self-policing vigilantism is" defendable" , but this should not dent his right to represent the small section of people; in whose eyes he reigns good. There is also the point that in India's extremely murky political slug-fight, self-policing doesn't occur rarely. In the reams expended on criticising Pramod Muthalik, the Sree Ram Sene and their ilk for their attacks on women, we do not see that the Muthalik kind of defence of Indian "culture" is the result of our incomplete modernisation. This is what Muthalik's violence, Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot's tacit acquiescence with such behaviour and Union Women's Affairs Minister Renuka Choudhary's response all share in common.Yet the many, responsible for this 'cruel act' are given little backlash; in the name of political gambits. Be it the "Jungle Raj" of Bihar under Lalu or "Goonda Raj" of U.P. under Mulayam. The recent episode by Somnath Bharti was condemned by the media as well as opposition parties. But the self styled "liberal" , "educated" and "sophisticated "Aam Aadmis" went on to ferociously defend this act. Till date Somnath Bharti enjoys extended respect in this "Magnomaniac" party, that is notorious for drawing comparisions with the apostles; Kejriwal being the saviour - Jesus.
The BJP topbrass facing a barrage of 'Tweet attacks' chose to overturn it's state unit's decision; expelling Muthalik, within hours. Arun Jaitely described the ousting as "Triumph of democracy". The opposition parties had already begun it's initial round of firings. It is rectitude in professing that when examining all the political parties in the fray, this election; a person of Muthalik's stature is perceptible. One need'nt look deep; where most of the dirt resides. Many top brass leaders of various parties are brimming with highly communal and barbarian personalities.  Be it the Congress alliance with Owasis or with AIDF, IUML; or the MNS support to NDA; or JD(U) support to Shabir Ali; or Quami Ekta Dal candidate,Mukhtar Ali contesting against Modi; from jail.The list is endless. The regional parties are no pietist and sterile. The left fronts association with Naxalites needs no introduction. The Kerala government's decision of allowing juvenile girls to be married off at an young age of 13 ar more , created little storm in the media; almost all in the online media space. Instead of standing against these bizzard government policies; plenty in number-targetted against women empowernment, meadia along with it's progressive reformists choose to condemn isolated incidents. It is ironic that while Rahul Gandhi, PM candidate from Congress, campaignings all around India on the issue of women empowernment, his own government is culprit of "double-standards".
Consider the below excerpt from news article.
Sri Ram Sene has decided to present Tejpal, through the jail officers, a copy of Shrimad Bhagwad Gita to teach him the importance of Hindu culture. SRS feels by reading it, there will be a change in Tejpal's mental attitude and morality," Hakeri said. SRS, led by Pramod Muthalik, gained notoriety on January 24, 2009, after storming into a Mangalore pub "Amnesia - The Lounge" and beating up young men and women, claiming the women were violating traditional Indian values."This act of inappropriate behaviour with a woman, as young as his daughter, on the part of Tejpal, under the influence of western culture signifies his immorality and lack of character," Hakeri said.Tejpal was arrested on November 30 after a junior employee accused him of sexually assaulting her twice in a five-star hotel's elevator in the Goa capital during Thinkfest, an event organised by the magazine on November 7 and 8.
Now, Tehelka(a newspaper run by 'commies') had gone berserk in it's attack on SRS; even after Muthalik was apprehended; like other media agencies.But when it comes to introspection within itself, the guns fall silent. It even tried to deflect the controversy by projecting it as 'Vendeta' by BJP, due to it's role at "Operation West End" .
I hope the above satisfactorily answers my stand at the beginning. This is Neo-Conservatism that I subscribe-upto a point. It is quite possible that other activists may have many contrasting reasons to cite in addition to what I have attempted to point out. I would be glad if they come out with their arguments.

Scindia

The only surviving Maratha dynasty is split over the oldest curse of kingdoms: property. Split down the middle over its political affiliations for long, the House of Scindias now threatens to come apart over a real estate empire valued at Rs.20,000 crore.
In a litigious confrontation that will pit aunt against nephew, Rajasthan chief minister Vasundhara Raje Scindia (BJP) is battling her Congress MP nephew Jyotiraditya Scindia (son of her late brother and Congress heavyweight Madhavrao) for control of the wealthy charitable trusts set up by Vasundhara's mother, late Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia. She is flanked by her sisters -  Yashodhara Raje(BJP) and Usha Raje. The focal point is Krishna Madhav Public Charitable Trust and His Highness Sir Maharaja Jivajirao Scindia Charitable Trust. Set up by Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia in 1966, the trusts own three multicrore properties in south Mumbai, which were gifted to the Rajmata. She had declared her daughters to be the sole trustees, which has been contested by the Harvard educated Jyotiraditya Scindia.
The rift although reaching courts now; was evident since decades. It began with the arrival of Madhavrao Scindia to India; four years after his departure to US in regards to pursue studies, following his father's death. Although Vijaya Raje, married to Jivajirao Scindia, Maharaja of Gwalior, one of the largest, richest and highest-ranking 21-gun-salute princely states in India; had an amiacable relationship with her late husband, she found solace in Sardar Sambhajirao Chandroji Angre. In her autobiography, she regretfully recounts how little sympathy she was able to extend to her two younger daughters in their troubled marriages. Madhavrao loathed this new diktat in the royal house and was often at loggerheads in this issue. When he asked Vijaya Raje to choose between the two, Raje choose Angre, adding fuel to the fire. Explaining"How could I desert a man who stood by me in my time of need?" Both often were in a state of spat against each other even in public, ever since.  Indeed, when her will was read shortly after her death, it was found that she had forbidden her son from participating in her funerary obsequies. This is the ultimate castigation an orthodox Hindu can mete out to a son.
Following Indira Gandhi's abolition of privy purse in 1971; most of the royal families were financing her opponents, quickly squabbled under her. This is evident till date where numerous royal autocrats have Congress membership. But Vijaya Raje remained unfazed and remained openly in support of Jana Sangh - right-wing political party. Madhavrao traces the break to 1972, the year he wanted to opt out of his mother's party, the Jan Sangh, and join the Congress instead a chance.Scoffs Sardar Sambhajirao Chandroji Angre, 71, the Rajmata's companion for the last three decades, and a key player in the rift: "He chickened out because the Jan Sangh did not do so well in the 1972 Vidhan Sabha elections."  Madhavrao jumped into the Indira bandwagon. Exerting great influence within the judiciary and police, he began asserting great pressure on his mother. Sale and donation of properties were put on hold. Backed by Indira, he even went to the extent of sending his mother to prison during the emergency era. The simmering tension came to a boil with the Emergency.The difference of ideologies and loyalty  rifted relations between the two, which had been straining at the seams all along, snapped almost completely. After emergency, while Madhavrao contested on a Congress(I) ticket from Guna, his mother was the opposition candidate against Indira Gandhi from Rae Bareli. However, politics and economics are just the tip of the iceberg.
What began as a tiff over petty household officers, became a no-holds-barred battle after the 1980 assembly elections. Madhavrao's staff lodged an FIR against Angre, his daughter and the Rajmata's stepbrother, Dhyanendra Singh, now a minister in Madhya Pradesh.They were charged with breaking open a palace room and removing furniture. Many important family assets were seized and kept in status quo; eventhough Raje watched helplessly. Was her political inclinations going to be the fall of her property? A murky legal battle began for the 15 family trusts which control most of the property. The dispute is still pending. What irked Madhavrao most was the steady infiltration of the palace by RSS-run organisations. The flashpoint came in March 1982 when the Rajmata announced she would dedicate the palace to Vidya Bharati. Animosities were fuelled by Angre's arrest in July 1982. He was charged with theft of antiques from the palace museum, following a complaint from Madhavrao's staff. The BJP Government, after coming to power has since withdrawn the case. Yet, the fierce feud continued. Apparently, in August 1983, Madhavrao's armed supporters raided and captured three buildings in the Gwalior palace complex under the occupation of the Rajmata and Angre who were in London at that time. Angre's house, sealed by the administration subsequently, is still locked with his things lying inside. Angre, who claims "it was pure vendetta", hit back by filing a case of breach of trust and forgery against Madhavrao for occupying a Bombay flat belonging to a family trust in 1983. The Supreme Court, influenced by Indira ruled in Madhavrao's favour.
The Scindia family till date maintains the age old tradition of inter-royal marriages. So was the case with Vijaya Raje who was an aristocratic family exiled from Nepal(One of her daughters has been wed to a Nepali royal family heir and another; Vasundhra Raje was married to a Hemant Singh,ex-royal Dholpur family).
In the recently concluded Madhya Pradesh assembly elections,Jyotiraditya Scindia, the Congress's unofficial chief ministerial face has been campaigning in Shivpuri, an assembly seat that's part of his Lok Sabha constituency of Guna, wherein Yashodhara, his aunt is the BJP's candidate But the Maharaja of the erstwhile state of Gwalior is faced a humiliating rout in the results. Owing to Shivraj Singh Chauhan's efforts and charisma, the 'lotus bloom' is set to stay extremely vibrant, and most importantly for a long time to come. For Jyotiraditya Scindia, this, shall be hard to digest.
 After an enormously painstaking efforts by Vasundhra Raje -Jyotiraditya Scindia's younger aunt , in the social service sector, coupled with the rising anti-incumbency against the ruling congress; Vasundhra had stormed into the Rajasthan government as a Chief Minister. Although, most of her period as CM saw enormous developmental and social projects such as Asia's biggest colony, per say; at the nearing of her tenure, she began to attract a lot of controversies. She did a ramp walk in an effort to revive Khadi garments, which also attracted huge funding for the people depending their lives on Khadi products. But in a state, still lingering in the medieval times, having a female authoritarian was "unacceptable". A female doing ramp walk in front of cheering crowds, although her intention was in the well-being of her citizens, did not go down well in the conservative society. The final blow came when, Vasundhara was caught hugging Biocon chief Mazumdar Shaw. The angle of the photoshot was such that, it gave a look of the duo in a lip-smooching. The media went berserk in humiliating Vasundhara calling it a "shahi pappi". Her own party members asked for her resignation, for this act. But undeterred she continued her work towards development and infrastructure projects. On the eve of elections, the opposition congress used this incident in a selfish manner, asking for the CM's apology and equating the incident as, "the humiliation of all womenfolk of Rajasthan". They conveniently choose to ignore the incident where the late Congress party's PM of India had hugged Benazir Bhutto - PM of Pakistan. These was hailed as a mark of 'friendship' by both the Congress party as well as the media.The congress's false promises of reservation, employment and the usual - freebies was a key in creating anti-incumbency, leading to the fall of Vasundhara led BJP, by a narrow margin. Many of her own party members, unable to take 'diktat' from a female had indulged in cross-voting. Nonetheless, the true face of Ghelot led congress government was exposed as soon as they assumed power, wherein they indulged in little developmet activities and more of 'giving subsidiaries and freebies' - resulting in the bankruptcy of the Government. Vasundhara stormed back to power in the next elections beating her opponents by a huge margin - a complete rout of congress.
As the BJP grows in strength with the Vasundhara as a chief minister, and as Madhavrao reaches for the top laurel in the Congress, the battle can only assume a keener edge.

(In pic: Vijaya Raje resists as Priyadarshini Raje Scindia, Jyotiraditya Scindia's wife tries to touch her mother-in-law's feet.)

THE GREAT GAME

 "The Great Game" was a term used to describe the competition between the empires of Britain and Russia in the 19th century, which was often focused on military and diplomatic manoeuvres in Afghanistan.The term was popularised by Rudyard Kipling in the novel Kim, which first appeared in serial form in 1900.The classic Great Game period is generally regarded as running approximately from the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1813 to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. A less intensive phase followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In the post-Second World War post-colonial period, the term has continued in use to describe the geopolitical machinations of the Great Powers and regional powers as they vie for geopolitical power and influence in the area.Soviet attack on Afghanistan during the 'cold war' is often seen as reciprocal to the 19th century one.'The New Great Game' has since evolved after the fall of Soviet Union.It is the competition between various Western powers, Russia, and China for political influence and access to raw materials in Central Eurasia—"influence, power, hegemony and profits in Central Asia and the Transcaucasia" The ongoing Ukraine crisis is example.

http://www.theindianrepublic.com/world/russian-game-ukraine-gas-lines-stupid-100028929.html

With the Russians continuing to make overtures to Afghanistan,George Eden, first earl of Auckland (1784-1849), arrived from England with orders to install a pro-British regime to keep the Russians at bay. He dispatched an army that marched through Sind on the way Afghanistan, ignoring a treaty with the Mirs, as the Talpur chieftains of Sind were known. The 1832 treaty forbade passage of British forces or military stores along the Indus River or across Sind. Lord Auckland's army joined another British force in Baluchistan. Once in Kabul the British installed their puppet, Shuja Shah, on the throne, but in 1841,while the British were on their way back to Jalalabad, near the Khyber Pass, a rebellion broke out. The retreating British forces were attacked, and most were slaughtered. Lord Auckland was recalled to England,After the Crimean War 1854-56, which nearly ruined Russia as a great power, and India's first war of Independence, which thoroughly alarmed the British, both powers felt acutely vulnerable.  In their redoubled efforts to defend their interests, they employed an armoury of policies: competition for political influence at the courts of the Sultan of Turkey, the Shah of Persia and the Amir of Afghanistan; trade and investment for political ends; strategic railways, military expeditions; and perhaps most important of all, allies in Europe.In the second half of the 19th ‘Century, Britain could usually count on Austria-Hungary, and sometimes on France and Germany, to help frustrate Russia in the Straights and Mediterranean.  In the end the fate of both Russian and British Empires had to be resolved in Europe, where the players of the Great Game sat.
Britain believed that Russia had plans to move southward and seize Britain's prize possession, India, which was known as 'The Raj'.The British invaded Afghanistan twice in the 1800s to prevent Russian encroachment in Afghanistan and any threat to British dominance in the region. the Russian Empire's expansion into Central Asia threatened to destroy the "jewel in the crown" of the British Empire, India. The British feared that the Tsar's troops would subdue the Central Asian khanates (Khiva, Bokhara, Khokand) one after another. The Emirate of Afghanistan might then become a staging post for a Russian invasion of India.With these intentions the British sought to establish a puppet rule in Afghanistan by declaring the first Anglo-Afghan war, that turned out to be disastrous with only one surviving British soldier.By 1850, the gap between the British and Russian Empires had narrowed to not much over 1000 miles, whereas it had been 4,000 miles in the early 18th Century. This resulted in British viewing Afghanistan as a buffer state.After Russia annexed Samarkhand, its control extended as far as the northern bank of the Amu Darya river In a letter to Queen Victoria, Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli proposed "to clear Central Asia of Muscovites and drive them into the Caspian".He proceeded to introduce the Royal Titles Act 1876, which added to Victoria's titles that of Empress of India, putting her at the same level as the Russian Emperor.Before and after achieving independence in 1947, what is now Pakistan was and is a prize and participant in the Great Game of global power politics writes James Wnbrandt in A Brief History of Pakistan.
The ruler of Afghanistan, Sher Ali Kahn, continued his weak hold on power. Despite Lord Mayo's visit in 1869, the British still refused to support him militarily or financially, and Sher Ali resisted British efforts to post an envoy in Kabul. Russia, meanwhile, made overtures of assistance to Sher Ali, although he had also refused Russia's request to post an envoy. Concerned about his developing relationship with Russia, Lytton dispatched a British officer to meet with the Afghan ruler, but Sher Ali refused to grant the emissary an audience and threatened to turn back any British diplomatic mission. In response, Lytton declared war on Afghanistan. Three forces consisting of 35,000 troops and camp followers under the command of Major General Frederick Roberts, General Samuel Browne and General Donald Martin Stewart advanced on Afghanistan.

Traversing what is now Pakistan, the British army made a show of force that implicitly demonstrated their control over the area. Sher Ali fled to Turkestan, from where he dispatched a letter agreeing to allow a British envoy in Kabul. Despite his acquiescence, the British occupied Kandahar and Jalalabad. On his way back to Afghanistan, Sher Ali died. The British struck a treaty with his son, Yaqub Khan at Gandamak, a village in southeast Afghanistan, in 1879.Under the terms of the Treaty of Gandamak, the British were allowed to place a British resident in Kabul and British agents in Herat and Kandahar. In return, Yaqub Khan received a subsidy of six lakhs rupees a year. Parts of Afghanistan and the whole of the Khyber Pass were ceded to Britain. Yaqub Khan also agreed to accept British counsel in conducting his foreign policy. But many Afghans wanted no British presence in their capital, and in 1879 mutinous troops stormed the house of the British Resident, Sir Pierre Louis Cavagnari and killed him and his staff. Lord Lytton dispatched an army under the command of generals Roberts and Stewart. Another of Sher Ali's sons, Ayub Khan , engaged the British army at the Battle of Maiwand in southern Afghanistan in July 1880. The largest battle of the Second Anglo-Afghan War, it ended in a British defeat, though the Afghan forces also lost many soldiers. Ayub remaining forces next laid siege to Kandahar, where a British resident was stationed. General Roberts hurried to relieve Kandahar, marching his forces more than 300 miles from Kabul. The British defeated the Afghans at the Battle of Kandahar in September 1880, the last major conflict of the Second Anglo-Afghan War. During the conflict, without the draft animals the British appropriated for the campaign, agriculture in the Punjab region suffered, costing the government a fortune in lost revenue. Lord Lytton resigned.
Following the Second Anglo-Afghan War, Lord Lytton was succeeded by George Frederick Samuel Robinson, first marquis of Ripon a more enlightened viceroy. In the same year British Liberal Party leader William Gladstone was beginning the second of his four terms as prime minister of Britain. He moderated the "forward policy," pursuing a less confrontational strategy toward Afghanistan. Instead of large settlements and forces, the British sought to counter Russian influence by the posting of small forces and extensions of existing fortifications. They agreed to recognize as emir of Afghanistan Abdur Rahman Khan, grandson of Dost Mohammad, who had long battled Sher Ali, Abdur Rahman's uncle, for the throne. The new emir brought stability to the region and retained good relations with the British throughout his reign, which lasted until 1901.

In the Middle East there was a direct conflict of interest.  The British were determined to check Russia in the Eastern Mediterranean Turkey and Persia since their commercial and military communications ran through those areas.  They were especially keen to control the Sultan of Turkey since, as Suzerain of Egypt, he ruled the territory through which ran the Suez Canal, Britain’s lifeline to India.  The Russians for their part were equally determined to control the Sultan, since he was also the guardian of the Straights of Constantinople, “the key to Russia’s house”, as Tzar Nicholas put it to Lord Salisbury the British Prime Minister in 1896.Russia went to war with Turkey in 1877, and by early 1878 seemed on the point of seizing the “keys to her house” from the Sultan.But Britain managed to secure the support of Austria-Hungary, alarmed by Russia’s military advance into the Balkans, and they called Russia to order at the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
After the repulse of Sir Neville Chamberlain, General “Bobs” Roberts pulled an amazing victory in the second Anglo-Afghan war.This was sufficient to retire Sher Ali, The Emir.His son Yakub Khan made overtures to the British, fearing their might and expelled the Russian envoy, which was the cause of the whole dispute.This of course enraged the hardliners in Afghanistan, who attacked British envoy and merchants all over the country and declared a holy war against Britain.After the whole episode,top British officials realised that the less  the British were seen in Afghanistan the better they would be liked; and that if Russia should try to seize Afghanistan or march through it to India, Britain would be more likely to attract the Afghan support if she had refrained form interfering in her affairs.In 1884, Russian expansionism brought about another crisis – the Panjdeh Incident – when they seized the oasis of Merv. The Russians claimed all of the former ruler's territory and fought with Afghan troops over the oasis of Panjdeh. On the brink of war between the two great powers, the British decided to accept the Russian possession of territory north of the Amu Darya as a fait accompli in the joint Anglo-Russian Boundary Commission,without any Afghan hare say.The Russians accepted that the politics of Afghanistan were solely under British control as long as the British guaranteed not to change the regime. Russia agreed to conduct all political relations with Afghanistan through the British. The British agreed that they would maintain the current borders and actively discourage any attempt by Afghanistan to encroach on Russian territory. Persia was divided into three zones: a British zone in the south, a Russian zone in the north, and a narrow neutral zone serving as buffer.The Third Anglo-Afghan War of 1919 was precipitated by the assassination of the then ruler Habibullah Khan. His son and successor Amanullah declared full independence and attacked the northern frontier of British India.The Soviets provided Amanullah with aid in the form of cash, technology and military equipment. British influence in Afghanistan waned, but relations between Afghanistan and the Russians remained equivocal, with many Afghans desiring to regain control of Merv and Panjdeh.
In the early 1890s the chesslike manoeuvring the British and Russians engaged in as each attempted to gain power and influence in the Pamir Mountains, which extend from the Hindu Kush into Afghanistan, took centre stage in their contest. The Great Game came to an end with the Pamir Boundary Agreement of March 1895, signed by Russia and Great Britain. It established the Wakhan Corridor, a narrow sliver of Afghanistan in the Pamir Mountains, as a buffer between Russia (now Tajikistan) and British-held India in what is today Pakistan. The corridor, about 300 miles (480 km) long and less than 10(16 km) miles wide in some places, borders China on the east.
The border between Afghanistan and British India had never been fixed. That boundary was delineated by the Durand Line, created during Lord Lansdowne's time as viceroy. Sir Henry Mortimer Durand was an officer in the corps when he requested permission from Abdur Rahman, the emir of Afghanistan, to determine a line of demarcation between Afghanistan and the British Empire.Abdur Rahman could not well refuse, as the British controlled trade routes in and out of Afghanistan and paid the emir subsidies. When completed in 1893, the Durand Line moved the border of the British territory from the foothills west to the crests of the highest peaks and ridges in the mountains dividing the territories. This brought several tribes, including the Afridis, the Mahsuds, the Wazirs, and the Swat, under nominal British rule if not control. The British launched several military campaigns to subdue the tribes and demonstrate their regional dominance.
In 1901,Curzon heard rumours that seemed to justify his fears about Russian intervention on the north-east frontier of India with Tibet.The Russian government was supposedly sending agents and arms to the mysterious country in the mountains.There was nothing apparently to be done about this.Tibet lay nominally under the suzerainty of China, a power so decrepit that it was unable to enforce its rights. When the British protested to China they were apt to be told that the Tibetans were out of control and on approaching the Tibetans one was told to deal with China.The British cabinet were reluctant to do anything that would estrange Britain further from Russia since  both empires were alarmed by the unified German Empire's increasing activity in the Middle East.Nonetheless both powers agreed to maintain territorial integrity of this buffer state and "to deal with Lhasa only through China, the suzerain power".China now held the mainstage in this game.The shooting in Lhasa and subsequent Younghusband mission is a prime example of the way in which a mere hint of Russian action could lead the British into international embarrassment.  There is no evidence that Russia ever made any serious attempt to control Tibet; she had no claim and little opportunity to intervene.But Britain was prepared to pay a considerable price to keep her out.The Younghusband mission  was the last throw of the dice in the Great Game!In the following years the Russians capitalised on Britain’s evident anxiety to keep their goodwill in Europe, by behaving much as they pleased in Persia.On one occasion the commander of the Cossacks in Teheran threatened to bombard the British legation.Indeed by 1914 Russia had virtually annexed the northern part of Persia in which most of the principal cities lay.There was nothing the British could do short of renewing the Great Game.
In July 1914, on the eve of the First World War, the British Ambassador in St. Petersburg urged support for Russia in order to gain her friendly co-operation in Asia.This argument certainly counted for something in London.  Britain and Russia fought together in the War - a state of affairs that would have seemed incredible a few years before - because each saw Germany as an immediate menace.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/33619/david-fromkin/the-great-game-in-asia

http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/haifa-peerzada/china-and-great-game

LIKE FATHER, UNLIKE DAUGHTER

In a poll conducted by Outlook magazine, in partnership with CNN-IBN and The History Channel and prominent lawyers cum historians - The Greatest Indian, Indira Gandhi was placed second, 2 places above her charismatic father,Nehru.Though a lot critics,such as Ram Jethlamani were deterred and critical of the panelists, many others largely upheld the results.In 2001, Gandhi was voted the greatest Indian Prime Minister in a poll organised by India Today. She was also named "Woman of the Millennium" in a poll organised by the BBC in 1999.

Many a academics hold the opinion that both the Nehru/Gandhi family have completely overshadowed numerous other legacies and contributions.Nonetheless it is undisputed that they have played a major role in shaping modern India's government and political culture along with sound foreign policy, for good or bad.Gandhi gave us freedom, Nehru protected our independence and Indira Gandhi saved the nation.It is a common upheld opinion that both Father-Daughter were similar in many regards.True, but their disparities far outweighed their similarities.Indira herself was at loggerheads with her father over policy; most notably, she used his oft-stated personal deference to the Congress Working Committee to push through the dismissal of the Communist Party of India government in the state of Kerala, over his own objections.Nehru began to be frequently embarrassed by her ruthlessness and disregard for parliamentary tradition, and was "hurt" by what he saw as an assertiveness with no purpose other than to stake out an identity independent of her father.While Nehru has been acclaimed for domestic and social policies, he failed many a times in the foreign policy sector.The opposite seems to be true in case of 'Indiramma'.The former was an idealist, the latter a realist.Nehru clearly pronounced his ideas, visions through books, debates and speeches, trying to bring in the masses under his 'umbrella of schemes'.On the other hand, Indira was an autocrat and did not have a clear-cut, 'spelt out' ideals.When asked by a journalist, after she nationalised banks, whether she was a socialist? She replied unfazed, "I suppose you could call me a socialist, but you have to understand what we mean by that term.We used the word because it came closest to what we wanted to do here – which is to eradicate poverty. You can call it socialism; but if by using that word we arouse controversy, I don't see why we should use it. I don't believe in words at all." The former strived for the welfare of nation, the later thrived for the well being of people of the nation.The similarities has often been highlighted. Both preached 'dynastial power' , Secularism, Socialism,self-entitlement(viz Bharat Ratna ,Anand Bhavan-Swaraj Bhavan,public institutions),critical of external opinion and so on.But the 'extent' is divergent. While Nehru accomodated his family member's within the Indian government in conscious to their merit and education, Indira did so for the sake of sheer loyality. Even after having a lot of differences with others, especially Patel, Bose, Prasad, Nehru tried to overcome them with discussions, Gandhi-backing and his eloquent lawyer skills.It is true that Nehru could appear superior, not least to his colleagues in party and government. They did not share his cosmopolitan outlook, nor his interest in art, music, literature, or science. But no one did more than Nehru to nurture the values and institutions of democracy in India. It was he who first advocated adult suffrage, he who welcomed a constructive Opposition, he who scrupulously maintained the independence of the bureaucracy and the judiciary. Nehru-the champion of panchayat raj,had in many instances yielded to the majority of his party and of the country.Thus Congress Chief Ministers were always elected by the legislators of the concerned state, regardless of Nehru’s opinion in the matter. And once he saw that both party and country wanted it, Nehru yielded to the formation of linguistic states—a policy he was personally opposed to.Another classic example is the enactment of 'The Hindu Civil Code'.After facing criticism from a section of politicians, including Syama Prasad Mookerjee(who later founded the 'Jana Sangh' that later transpired to 'BJP' as we know today.) for his 'selective secularist' principles.He justified it with 'the purpose of not alienating minorities and persuading them to stay in India'.He even promised to extend it at later point of time, 'when Muslims are ready'(which of course never transpired due to the vote-bank politics his successors plunged into).Nonetheless, he failed to tranquilize the 'storm'.He challenged to fight the first, independent India election ,on this issue,tooth and nail.The conservatives and right-leaning VHP managed to secure only a meagre 12 seats compared to Congress' 364.Nehru had been given a clear mandate by the people and hence proceeded to enact his 'dream bill'.

Unlike her father Jawaharlal Nehru, who preferred to deal with strong chief ministers in control of their legislative parties and state party organizations, Mrs. Gandhi set out to remove every Congress chief minister, bureaucrats who had an independent base and to replace each of them with ministers personally loyal to her.
Recently, the myth around is that Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel were opponents and adversaries.
In truth,Nehru and Patel worked superbly as a team—they were who, in the first, formative years of independence, effectively united and strengthened India.Overriding party's wishes of Patel as Prime Minister, Gandhi had instead advocated for Nehru.Each knew the other’s gifts, each took care not to tresspass on the other person’s turf. That is how, together, they built India anew out of the ruins of Partition.Of course, they differed by temperament and ideology. But these differences were subsumed and transcended by commitment to a common ideal: namely, a free, united, secular and democratic India. There were some things Nehru could do better than Patel—communing with the masses, relating to the world, assuring vulnerable groups (such as Muslims, tribals, and Dalits) that they enjoyed equal rights with other Indians. There were some things Patel could do better than Nehru—dealing with the princes, nurturing the Congress party, carrying along dissidents in the Constituent Assembly.In these matters,Nehru gave Patel his space and acted only as an observer.After Patel's death,Nehru's handling of Kashmir, China and USA was a complete failure compared to Patel's success in issues of - uniting India from princely rulers(a whooping 565), foreign policy stance, Hyderabad, Junagad and Lakshadweep crisis.Had Nehru followed in Patel's footstep in foreign cum domestic affairs, he would have been a 'complete leader'.Kashmir would not be 'a burning valley' and rather 'The Swiss of Asia'.Unfortunately he stuck to his passive stance. It is noteworthy that Patel had opposed Azad and Nehru's proposal to reserve the houses vacated by Muslims who had departed for Pakistan, for Muslims in India.Patel eventhough arguing that 'a secular government could not offer preferential treatment for any religious community', had to back out.
The myth of their rivalry is best answered in their own words. After Gandhi died, Nehru wrote to Patel of how ‘the old controversies have ceased to have much significance and it seems to me that the urgent need of the hour is for all of us to function as closely and co-operatively as possible’. In all the years they had worked together, said Nehru, ‘my affection and regard for you has grown, and I do not think anything can happen to lessen this.Anyway, in this crisis that we have to face now after Bapu’s death I think it is my duty and, if I may venture to say, yours also for us to face it together as friends and colleagues.’
Indira lacked these skills and throughout her tenure was  locked in horns with her detractors.She surrounded herself in the cabinet, party, judiciary and even the military with her loyals.She saw herself ill-fit in the 'democratic anarchy' of decision making.For instance, when there was a difference of opinion to the nomination of President of India between her and Congress party, headed by Kamaraj-'The kingmaker' instead of backing out, she went against her party to enforce her decision through foul methods. Incidently, it was Kamaraj who had pushed for her as Prime Minister instead of Moraiji Desai and himself, as was suggested by majority of party members.  
Nehru understood that freedom was not synonymous with independence. Neo-colonization is, after all, the grant of independence on condition you do not exercise it. British India was both colony and neo-colony, the latter being the status of princely states. Nehru saw, all around him, how quickly the post-colonial world sought the sanctuary of nurseries set up by both Washington and Moscow. He believed that India's tryst with destiny was something more substantive than occasional lollipops; that India's success could not be outsourced to even a well-wisher, let alone any cynical superpower searching for allies in a Cold War. He needed to look no further than Pakistan for a narrative of dependency. He stumbled when he trusted the Third World as much as he distrusted the First. His Himalayan blunder was a calculation, or miscalculation, that China would be a partner in such a world view. He confused himself with others, and the Chinese laughed at his commitment to peace. Trust is so often the ultimate naivete.
India welcomed the realism of Indira Gandhi after the travails of Nehru's idealism. Her two decades, between 1964 and 1984, as cabinet minister and prime minister, constituted an age of violence in all its myriad complexities: communal, ethnic, linguistic, Communist, secessionist. Language riots in the south; Hindu-Muslim mayhem across the map; Naxalite insurgents lighting a Maoist prairie fire; radical trade unions; a war with Pakistan; Emergency; and, in her second term as prime minister, upheaval in Assam, explosions across the North-East and a full-fledged rebellion in Punjab led by a charismatic theocrat. Calm was not written in her fate lines. Was Bangladesh her high point and Emergency the nadir?
India could have gone the way so many post-colonial dictatorships in Africa and Asia if the Emergency, justified by sycophants as essential to the national interest, had stratified into long-term one-person rule. Some of her closest advisers were determined that it should continue for 20 years. The government had survived the initial outburst by sending the Opposition into prison and the press into coma. Individuals and institutions were gradually co-opted into the quasi-dictatorship. But just when hope for democracy had begun to ebb, one person realized that a government without a mandate was illegitimate. That person was Mrs Gandhi. In January 1977, she shocked friend and foe by calling a general election. In March, she was shocked when the Congress was routed. Democracy has never been challenged again.It takes a stature of Mrs. Gandhi to execute a bloodless coup amongst all the opposition and division.
It is odd that a leader who was so adept at war in 1971 should prove so gullible in the subsequent peace process. No matter which way you look at it, the Simla Agreement of 1972 was an opportunity thrown away. The cease-fire line of 1948 should have been converted into the permanent border, sealing, thereby, the 1966 Tashkent Agreement in which India and Pakistan inked a commitment to respect this line. Mrs Gandhi held all the trumps in 1972, and lost the hand to Zulfiqar Bhutto. His successor, Zia-ul-Haq, took revenge for Bangladesh by helping foment the Punjab revolt: its apex, in 1984, saw the destruction of the Golden Temple, the assassination of Indira Gandhi, and the frenzied massacre of Sikhs. Zia-ul-Haq could not tear India apart, but he left a wound in India's heart.Mrs Gandhi's martyrdom washed away her mistakes from public memory. But I guesss, only great heroes make great mistakes.
My opinion is strenghtened in the case of Jivatram Bhagwandas Kripalani(during the election for the post of the future Prime Minister of India held by the Congress party, he had the second highest number of votes after Sardar Patel).After Gandhi's assassination in January 1948, Nehru rejected his demand that the party's views should be sought in all decisions. Nehru, with the support of Patel, told Kripalani that while the party was entitled to lay down the broad principles and guidelines, it could not be granted a say in the government's day-to-day affairs. This precedent became central to the relationship between government and ruling party in subsequent decades.
Nehru, however, supported Kripalani in the election of the Congress President in 1950. Kripalani, supported by Nehru, was narrowly defeated against Patel's candidate Purushottam Das Tandon. Tandon defeated Kripalani. Bruised by his defeat, and disillusioned by what he viewed as the abandonment of the Gandhian ideal of a countless village republics, Kripalani left the Congress and became one of the founders of the Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party. This party subsequently merged with the Socialist Party of India to form the Praja Socialist Party,which achieved moderate success until his death.For a while it was even believed that Nehru, stung by the defeat, was considering abandoning the Congress as well(unlike Indira who chose to dislodge opponents during setbacks); his several offers of resignation at the time were all, however, shouted down.A great many of the more progressive elements of the party left in the months following the election.
Kripalani remained a critic of Nehru's policies and administration, while working for social and environmental causes.While remaining active in electoral politics, Kripalani gradually became more of a spiritual leader of the socialists than anything else; in particular, he was generally considered to be, along with Vinoba Bhave, the leader of the what remained of the Gandhian faction.
In 1972-3, he agitated against the increasingly authoritarian rule of Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India. Kripalani and Jayaprakash Narayan felt that Indira's rule had become dictatorial and anti-democratic. Her conviction on charges of using government machinery for her election campaign, along with massive corruption charges galvanized her political opposition and public disenchantment against her policies. Along with Narayan and Lohia, Kripalani toured the country urging non-violent protest and civil disobedience. When the Emergency was declared as a result of the vocal dissent he helped stir up,Kripalani was among the first of the Opposition leaders(along with Vajpayee) to be arrested.
The Congress Party split during the election campaign of 1977: veteran Gandhi supporters like Jagjivan Ram, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna and Nandini Satpathy were compelled to part ways and form a new political entity, CFD (Congress for Democracy), primarily due to intra-party politicking and also due to circumstances created by Sanjay Gandhi.A coalition of opposition, under the leadership of Morarji Desai, came into power after the State of Emergency was lifted. The coalition parties later merged to form the Janata Party under the guidance of Gandhian leader, Jayaprakash Narayan. The other leaders of the Janata Party Charan Singh, Raj Narain, George Fernandes and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The Janata government's Home Minister, Choudhary Charan Singh, ordered the arrest of Indira and Sanjay Gandhi on several charges, none of which would be easy to prove in an Indian court. The arrest meant that Indira Gandhi was automatically expelled from Parliament. These allegations included that she “‘had planned or thought of killing all opposition leaders in jail during the Emergency’”.However, this strategy backfired disastrously. Her arrest and long-running trial, however, gained her great sympathy from many people. The Janata coalition was only united by its hatred of Gandhi (or "that woman","gungi gudiya" as some called her). With so little in common, the Morarji Desai government was bogged down by infighting. Desai resigned in June 1979 after Charan Singh and Raj Narain formed their own breakaway party,due to the back-hand dealing tactics of Gandhi.Charan Singh was appointed Prime Minister, by President Reddy, after Gandhi promised Singh that Congress would support his government from outside. After a short interval, Congress withdrew support and President Reddy dissolved Parliament in the winter of 1979.'Indiramma' stormed back to power yet again in the subsequent elections following her dramatic rescue operation of flood victims in Bihar and her vision of 'Garibi Hatao'.The reasons were aplenty.The coalition,though united in opposition to Mrs. Gandhi's hypocracy, were bogged down in their own political aspirations.The anti-incumbency votes had been fragmented into numerous parties, each trying to exert their own influence and ideology.Hence the government was tied in a loose coalition.Most importantly, instead of implementing policies, the govt. was busy dismantling the ' cocoon of patrons of Mrs. Gandhi' filled in the 'pillars of democracy'.It held intelligence agencies such as RAW in distaste.Economic indicators plumented.This provided her an opportunity to discredit other leaders' legacy/martyrship. She was successful in establishing her dynastial legacy in the eyes of the naive villagers.Other freedom fighters and reformers names were erased from history.Huge swathes of developmental projects, accolades, institutions were re-named after her."India is Indira, Indira is India" was coined.
Another incident that stands out is the motion to abolish privy purses in 1970. It was passed in the Lok Sabha but felt short of the two-thirds majority in the Rajya Sabha by a single vote.Gandhi responded by having a Presidential proclamation issued; de-recognizing the princes; with this withdrawal of recognition, their claims to privy purses were also legally lost.However, the proclamation was struck down by the Supreme Court of India.In 1971, Gandhi again motioned to abolish the privy purse. This time, it was successfully passed as the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India.This serves the insight of Gandhi's non-hesitent attitude in fiddling with constitution and state machineries in achieving targets.Gandhi claimed that only "clear vision, iron will and the strictest discipline" can remove poverty.But many critics claim that it was not Indira's intention;to help the poor, rather her intents in abolishing privy purses was politically motivated-like many of her policies. This is so, because many of the royal princes had gravitated towards an emerging right-oriented, free-market advocate party - Swatantrata Party, led by a Gandhi aide and freedom fighter R.Gopalachari. Swatantrata(Freedom), stood for free enterprise, trade and a dismantling of the notorious corrupt License Raj . Most notable among the royals were the Maharani of Gwalior-Rajmata Scindia and Maharani of Jaipur. It was pure political vendetta in Indira's ploys - striking two birds with a single stone.
While Nehru had encouraged Homi Bhabha in developing nuclear materials for 'purely research'(eventhough the latter had assured of developing atomic bomb as early as 1956), his daughter had a different perception.After Nixon's nuclear threat in the conflict of 1971 and the nuclear acquisation by China, she gave direction for an unprecedented, accelerated approach to attain nuclear weapons,describing the test for peaceful purposes and India's commitment to develop its programme for industrial and scientific use.While in reality it was to establish India's stability and security interests as independent from those of the nuclear superpowers.A baffling yet remarkable thing about it was that the world, including superpowers lodged no sanctions nor protests in this regard.
Nehru apart, important state leaders like S. Nijalingappa, K. Kamaraj, Y.B. Chavan, and Sucheta Kripalani within the Congress, as well as Rammanohar Lohia, E.M.S. Namboodiripad and Jayaprakash Narayan in other parties, were committed — in spirit and in deed — to religious pluralism and social harmony.He was successful in reigning in conservative Pro-Advaita Vedanta statesmen like Radhakrishnan, Madan Malviya etc.Resultantly,the 1950s were relatively free from Hindu-Muslim violence because of specific acts by specific politicians.
On the other hand, Indira's totalitarian rule distanced many prominent idealists from the decision-making mainframe.This enhanced a sense of bitterness among many.It has been accussed that "We missed Electronic Age completely, when Indian was most suitable for it more than the Computer Age.The whole world was turning to open economoy and information.But she did the reverse by enforcing Licence Raj.Since she was busy fighting the opposition,she made authorities very powerful to make decisions when the rules were insufficient.Indirectly these authories were controlled by the ministers, who indulged in rampant corruption.Indira's rule has been attributed to a period of 'unprecedented, yet invisible corrupt practices' at all levels.Power/money hungry men realised the need to succumb to her will in order to strive.Political ecosystem changed from 'Gandhian raj'during Nehruvian times to 'goonda raj' during Indira's.This resulted in utter chaos. Nehru used to atleast make attempts to listen or re-concile, while she dismissed critics outright.This enraged many sections of the society particularly the urban elite.
Before the 1980 elections Indira approached the then Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Syed Abdullah Bukhari and entered into an agreement with him on the basis of 10-point programme to secure the support of the Muslim votes.She even promoted many minorities in every pillars and institutions of democracy, overiding many senior and well-qualified people.This 'minority appeasement' sent a wave of anger among the 'intellectuals'.Nehru had always strayed away from directly engaging in such practices and had advocated meritocracy.It has been alleged by Natwar Singh, Gandhi's secretary in one of his books that she once made a controversial visit to the tomb of Babur and exclaimed "we have had a brush with History now".His claims have been dismissed as 'baseless' by INC.
There is considerable debate regarding whether Gandhi was a socialist on principle or out of political necessity.The Times journalist, Peter Hazelhurst, famously quipped that Gandhi's socialism was "slightly left of self-interest".Critics have focused on the contradictions in the evolution of her stance towards communism; Gandhi being known for her anti-communist stance in the 1950s with Meghnad Desai even describing her as "the scourge of (India's) Communist Party."Yet, she later forged close relations with Indian communists even while using the army to break the Naxalites. In this context, Gandhi was accused of formulating populist policies to suit her political needs; being seemingly against the rich and big business while preserving the status quo in order to manipulate the support of the left at times of political insecurity, such as the late 1960s.Although Gandhi came to be viewed in time as the scourge of the right-wing and reactionary political elements of India, leftist opposition to her policies emerged. As early as 1969,The Indian Libertarian wrote that: "it would be difficult to find a more machiavellian leftist than Mrs Indira Gandhi,for here is Machiavelli at its best in the person of a suave, charming and astute politician."Rosser wrote that "some have even seen the declaration of emergency rule in 1975 as a move to suppress [leftist] dissent against Gandhi's policy shift to the right."In the 1980s, Gandhi was accused of "betraying socialism" after the beginning of Operation Forward, an attempt at economic reform.Nevertheless, others were more convinced of Gandhi's sincerity and devotion to socialism. Pankaj Vohra noted that "even the late prime minister’s critics would concede that the maximum number of legislations of social significance was brought about during her tenure and she lives in the hearts of millions of Indians who shared her concern for the poor and weaker sections and who supported her politics."
Nehru implemented policies based on import substitution industrialisation and advocated a mixed economy where the government controlled public sector would co-exist with the private sector.He believed that the establishment of basic and heavy industry was fundamental to the development and modernisation of the Indian economy, hence the slogan "Dams are modern Temples of India".

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CFUQFjAG&url=https%3A%2F%2Fchurumuri.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F09%2F02%2Fmiddle-class-will-never-understand-indira-gandhi%2F&ei=wHARU9KnAYH5rQfY7oCIDw&usg=AFQjCNFadlF_9OMXgiGkR3U2WRJC8Rx8_Q&bvm=bv.62286460,d.bmk

Nehru always took hard-stand, but soft-approach in matters of domestic and social policies, contrary to Indira's hard approach.Nehru achieved greater success in uniting India through States Reorganisation Act, Indira had her's in abolition of privy purse, equal work wages for both men and women,massive redistribution program,procuring houses for landless labourers.She hit success in declaring the de facto use of both Hindi and English as official languages enmass constitutional amendments, where Nehru had failed. This established the official government policy of bilingualism in India and satisfied the non-Hindi speaking Indian states.Gandhi thus put herself forward as a leader with a pan-Indian vision.Nevertheless, critics alleged that her stance was actually meant to weaken the position of rival Congress leaders from the northern states such as Uttar Pradesh, where there had been strong, sometimes violent, pro-Hindi agitations.Gandhi came out of the language conflicts with the strong support of the south Indian populace.
On the international scene, Nehru was a champion of pacifism and a strong supporter of the United Nations. He pioneered the policy of non-alignment and co-founded the Non-Aligned Movement.He commissioned the first study of the human effects of nuclear explosions, and campaigned ceaselessly for the abolition of what he called "these frightful engines of destruction During the Suez crisis, Nehru's right hand man, Menon attempted to persuade Gamal Nasser to compromise with the West, and was instrumental in moving Western powers towards an awareness that Nasser might prove willing to compromise.However his Pacifist stand was exposed in Indus Water Treaty(with Pakistan) and Panchasheel(with China).Nonetheless,uncharacteric of his virtues he satisfied right-wing parties in the annexation of Goa from Portugese even while facing pressure from Pakistan due to their one-line foreign policy - when in doubt oppose India and when not in doubt oppose India.
The Indian relationship with the Soviet Union, criticised by right-wing groups supporting free-market policies was also seemingly validated after Nehru's China blunder.Nehru would continue to maintain his commitment to the non-aligned movement despite calls from some to settle down on one permanent ally,especially from Kennedy who settled on Pakistan after courting India as buffer zone in the battle against 'communisation of Asia'.A historic blunder many maintain, till date.Pakistan became a proxy for the US. Pakistan has time and again reaped from this forged friendship and survived the 'failed state' status.
Against Patel's wishes, Nehru promised in 1948 to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir ,after declairing cease-fire, despite claims by Major Karriappa to 'claim back the whole of Kashmir' and the untiring support of Lord Mountbatten.This was  and the first of the steps in alienating Kashmiris.
On the other spectrum, Indira realised the need to consolidate allies rather than to "fiddle around".America's trust in her was broken due to her socialist policies, hence she had to look towards Soviet Union for assistence in military, machinery and Space endeavours.Her soft stance on muslims earned her numerous Islamic state support. After the victory in 1971, she exerted India's influence in the global sphere.She was successful in annexing Sikkim without much of squeek from China, she challenged US backed Islamic coup in Indonesia and missed by a whisker in installing a secular government, one that went largely unnoticed in media.She revolutionised espionage agencies and gave a free hand ,in the disguise of anti-colonialism to RAW that engaged in numerous operations including Africa ,Sri Lanka and insurgency in Balochistan.She even managed to fool France, Germany and Italy.Despite being a staunch 'Anti-Communist' ,the 'Iron Lady of Britain' - Margaret Thatcher had special relations with the 'Iron Lady of India' - Indira.Nixon later wrote about her "this woman suckered us."He had also earlier described her as "cunning fox". She took an aggressive stand by initiating 'Indira Doctrine' under which Himalayan and North-Eastern states were brought under India's sphere of influence.Although Mrs.Gandhi rejected demands to invade Sri Lanka in the aftermath of Black July 1983, an anti-Tamil pogrom carried out by Sinhalese mobs,she stated that India cannot "remain a silent spectator to any injustice done to the Tamil community."Nonetheless she secretly supported LTTE against the Junius Jayewardene government whom she described as "Western Puppet".She along with Thatcher potrayed strong displeasure of Idi Amin's Indophobia-expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Uganda's Indian minority(which has been potrayed in the movie/novel 'The last king of scotland' and many other movies by the acclaimed director - Mira Nair).On the contrary she had little condemnation for Indophobia taking place in USA(Dotbusters) and it's allied countries.Alike her predecessors, she remained mute on the persecution of Romanis - Antiziganism.
Indira's biggest challenge was the juggling of support from the Middle East that was largely Pro-Pakistan and Pro-America, both a hinderance.It did'nt stop her from  developing a secret channel of contact and security assistance with Israel in the late 1960s under the vigilance of P.Narshimrao(which was strenghtened during his tenure as PM as well as during Vajpayee's.)This culminated in the failed attempt by RAW-Mossad to destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons.Nonetheless they inflicted serious software bugs in the systems(RAW had succeeded earlier in establishing a spying network that was uncannily given away by Moraji Desai to his Pakistani counterpart Zia-Ul-Haq ,earning Desai Nishan-e-Pakistan- Pakistan's highest civilian award.After this vital tip-off ISI managed to neutralise RAW spies, ultimately achieving nuclear supremacy).Unlike Nehru, she openly and enthusiastically supported liberation struggles in Africa.Her apart, Vajpayee is perhaps the only other Indian PM to achieve such success in the foreign policy sphere.
The Father-Daughter contrast is best visible in the assesment of their respective deaths.China, certainly was not rendezvous to Nehru's visioned tryst with destiny, rather his tryst with death.Nehru's passive, peace-mongering ideals haunted him at his deathbed.He was unable to muster resilience to recover the dismay and tyranny of China whom he perceived as 'an all weather friendly nation.Pakistan grants China that status now.Rise of separatist factions, even after article 370 continuous goodwill towards minorities left a dent in his life.It turned more personel when Sheikh Abdullah showed dissidence towards him.Inexplicable it was Sheikh who had defended Kashmir against Pakistani hordes during 1948 and toured Kashmir to garner support in favour of accession to India.Furthermore, right-wing leaders hammered continuous blows in this matter.Without his close aides- Patel, Prasad, Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan he felt 'nauseated' and 'unable to stomach the betrayals'.
Mrs. Gandhi's assasination was a direct consequence of her hegemony .It has been postulated that it was Indira herself who nurtured the orthodox Bhindrewala and gave him free hand, despite allegations of human right violations in order to overthrow the dominant Akali Dal party in Punjab, to revive congress fortunes in the state.Khalistan movement and operation bluestar were the culminations of Indira's brutal, authoritarian and non-tolerant attitude.Hence she dug her own grave.
Note :- There have been a great many movies, documentaries and T.V. series on political history, but handful of them have focussed on India.One series that stands out is Pradhanmantri by ABP news channel.Unlike other Pan-Indian newshouse documentaries, it is well-researched, unchaotic and has even been mentioned in Advani's blog.The show is enumerated by Shekhar Kapur, a critically acclaimed film director,who has directed academy award winning film Elizabeth and the controversial movie Bandit Queen.House Of Cards is sauccy, but this one is 'unmissable'.

OPEN LETTER TO SHINDE

Disgraced Shinde

"Will crush elements in media plotting against congress", you threatened, later clarifiying to refer to 'social media' after facing onslaught from the mainstream.By it's very character, it is bound to be a little blunt and somewhat irresponsible at times,yet is incapable of censorship.Frustration of the Congress leaders is quite understandable. The party faces public hostility. The day of reckoning is coming closer.
I have aways held you in high regards.Audacious, Sonia-appeasement, brazenness are some worth noting.How an 'Aam constable' as you attained such pinnacles of success is unfathomable, considering a lack of influential background,ideology,business background and the sheerness of your stupidity(Yet you have a declared assets statement of a whooping25 crores).  It is alright to take on the horde of right-wing,Hindu nationalist extremist elements on the social media, but to take on for the defence of a political party,in particular rather than the harmony of the public in general, irrespective of distinctions is expectant only of the 'grand old party'.As a home minister, had you shown a similar zeal in hunting down insurgents or ensuring women's safety in atleast the capital, your party probably would'nt have taken the huge beatings in state elections,as history is a testament to it.(The whole corruption and price rise issue would have faded slightly ,just as it has on numerous occassions in the past due to the vote bank politics.The difference this time was the mass-protests by feminists and 'Anna Hazare Andolan'.)
It is highly commendable(read as 'condemnable') that you so rigorously take on the 'tyrant'-'RSS'(though a fair description would be 'nationalist'), on the other hand letting free the 'far-right-extremist' organisations in the quest of minority and 'pseudo secularists'.As was evident in your request of releasing all 'minority accused' people of only a particular religion.And the length you went in trying to falsely implicate RSS in the aseemanand and Malegaon case.No doubt a secularist.It was a classic case of political  hegemony and mileage.In the aftermath of 26/11 Terrorist Attack, the Congress had said that terror should not be associated with any color or religion.On the other spectrum,you retorted "RSS and BJP were promoting Hindu terrorism through their training camps.", without substantial evidence, even after committing huge chunk of state resources in this regard.
"Ready to yield gun for Soniaji's sake" you quipped after being elevated as home minister.It is common knowledge the Gandhi-loyalism and the ass-licking you need to undergo in order to thrive in your party.But was it sane to boast it out in the public.I bet, even Madame Sonia would have had a facepalm moment, though it was meant as a impression.
A few months back I came across a report on the 'indulgement of INC in containing social media'.There was a clear indication from it that all your aims were to reduce the malignment of congress and Sonia Gandhi.Very few articles/posts/videos blocked were in the 'socially dangerous category'. Majority of these were to reduce the bad press of your party and it's leaders.I guess it should not be surprising since it has always been a policy of your 'grand old party' to indulge in media biasing/lobbying through various means be it- Radio, Tabloids, Mainstream, textbooks etc.It is social media were you are loosing your grounds, hence the backlash.
You have aways been engulfed by controversies.You called 'Kejru' as 'mad man', your wife was pulled in by the EC for distributing huge swaths of money, only 2 days prior to 'voting day'.As a remainder here is list of your 'karnamas' only in a single year.
October, 2013: Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde drew flak for attending a music launch of upcoming Bollywood movie 'Rajjo' in Mumabi, barely few hours of the serial blasts that rocked Patna, killing six people and injuring 90 others.

March, 2013: The Home Minister committed another gaffe as he named Bhandara rape victims during a debate in the Parliament.
April, 2013: Sushilkumar Shinde had said that such incidents (rape) happen elsewhere in the country too. "Rapes don't just happen in the capital but they happen elsewhere in the country as well," Shinde had said this while trying to diffuse the prevailing anger over the rape and brutality meted out to a five-year-old girl in New Delhi.
December 2012: Shinde was in the eye of the storm after he equated the protesters at the India Gate against the gang-rape of a 23-year-old para-medical student with armed Maoists. "It is very easy to ask the Home Minister to go to India Gate and talk...Tomorrow Congress and BJP will demonstrate, tomorrow Maoists will come here to demonstrate with weapons," Shinde said in interviews.
December 16, 2012: Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde was caught in another embarrassing moment after he referred Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed and conspirator of Mumbai attacks Hafiz Saeed as 'Mr' and 'Shri'. Shinde addressed Saeed as 'Mr' and 'Shri' twice each.Pakistan’s Home Minister, Rehman Malik,when he compared 26/11 terror attacks to Babari Mosque demolition,stated that Abu Jindal was an Indian Agent and to top it denied enough proof from Indian government to hold ,26/11 mastermind Hafiz Saeed ,guilty! To add on,he left Indian Home Minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde,humiliated with opposition asking why Shinde did not answer back
August, 2012: Shinde was criticised for his remarks against SP member Jaya Bachchan during a debate in Parliament on Assam violence "This (Assam violence) is a serious matter. This is not the subject of a film." Shinde's 'filmy' remark on Bachchan triggered an uproar following which he had to apologise to Jaya.
The whole Dawood issue needs no explanation.
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndtv.com%2Farticle%2Fcheat-sheet%2Fhome-minister-shinde-engulfed-by-dawood-controversy-10-points-470925&ei=v3EPU6zXKMb9rAe9xYC4CQ&usg=AFQjCNEfJ5AMl1U0__zg1myKdDH6UKcK7w&bvm=bv.61965928,d.bmk
Seeing all this, I guess you are giving Soniaji, run for her money and not  behind your 'counterparts in the cabinet',in the race to  snatch AIRTIME by resorting to publicity.
I still cannot come to the terms that you were a frontrunner in the vice-presidential election,even while facing corruption charges on numerous occassions.I guess when congress can appoint corrupt,self-obsessed Prathiba Patil as president, your claim is not injudicious.

OPEN LETTER TO CHIDDUJI

The recent spate of words you had against 'feku'(as your proponents enjoy calling) gives you no 'shobha'.You being a harvard educated lawyer took on a 'chaiwallah', challenging him on economic fronts.It is a completely different issue, worth ignoring(for you) that your opponent has proved time and again in administrative duties as well as economic reforms.You seemed to look-away the fact that 'feku' has turned Gujarat into a vibrant and model state,resulting in back to back electoral triumphs, despite all the vicious,degrotary remarks floated around in the media.I shall not bomblast you with various facts and figures supporting the claims,since it is evident that it shall bear no change of opinion from you.Well let us ignore his trackrecord and keep this letter clean, before you go into a verbal incantation of sluggish remarks against me.Let me instead turn your attention to the face of your campaign - 'pappu'(stop fuming!).Did'nt it cross your 'foreign-educated' brain of your's about his credentials.All he has been bantering around is -'Women empowerment', 'RTI', 'Opening the system'.However crude and sullied his claims are, let us for now assume his sincerity testimonials.But is that all that is to India and it's long running problems(which your 'grand old party', throughout history has promised to resolve).He never has spelt out clear-cut solutions or sometimes even has the faintest idea about the concurrent problems infesting the 'Aam Aadmi'. His acts of foolishness and disregard to ground realities has already created waves and is legendary in the social media(receiving wrath and 'video bans' from your government).I am well aver that your comprehension in no way resembles that of your compatriot 'Diggy chacha'.You do realise the incompetence of 'RaGa'.But you choose to disregard this fact to avail the electoral benefits his surname grosses.The sacrifice and greatness picture painted by your party about the 'Nehru-Gandhi' family,completely 'cherry-picking' incidents from history and beating it around to the 'ignorant masses' through nepotistic means has always bore fruits in your power quest.
In 2012 you took potshots at the 'Aam Aadmi'(not the party) and tried to cover your economic failures, coz you are too smart to fail.You have consistently blamed the system for not delivering rather than interrospect your party's policies viz. populist schemes.You even patted your back after the budget, despite all your failures.You hurled prejudiced chides against 'Namo' and his spelt out economic policies(which 'RaGa' has consistently frayed away from).Eventhough they have attracted good responses from likes of K.MAzumdar, R.Tata, N.Murthy and other numerous financial/corporate experts."In his hasty statement, unbecoming of a union minister, he betrays his party's incapacity and frustration to politically engage with Modi.Through his hurried statement, typically worded with pompousness and put-on sarcasm, Chidambaram has only rushed to cover up his failures to manage the economy. The minister has failed to check what was actually said by Modi. Had he checked the speech, Chidambaram would have known that 'aarthik sankat' were the exact words used and not inflation.All 'economists' are already taking due 'note' of Modi's performance vis-a-vis the worsening current account deficit (CAD) for which he and his party are solely responsible," Nirmala Sitharaman said of your potshots.

It is another thing that you have overlooked numerous occassions where Modi has clearly spelled out explicitly his grand plans on almost all sectors- Finance, agriculture, defence, external affairs.Whereas all that Rahul Gandhi has been beating his chest about are the revolutionary changes in restructuring his 'own party' and the bullying power he has on the government, be it the increase of cylinders or Anti-graft bill.Of course there is his mantra of - 'Women empowernment ,RTI, changing the system'.How he would achieve that is another issue altogether.And why these core issues are being given importance only during elections, well don't answer,it is preposterous.
You seem to have developed this palpable knack of dismissing the opposition's achievements and opinions,nonetheless 'fabricating' your success stories.You are consistently dismissive of your pathetic track-records.
The venom built inside you against your adversary compelled you to  engage in Modi-mocking,abroad,forgetting the fact that you were representing India and not INC.Probably both are one and the same to you.
Next, moving on Modi's reference to you as 'recount minister' for which you retorted with typical call of 'murderer' 'fascist' etc.Even from a neutral perspective, Modi's remarks weigh nothing against the degrotary remarks assaulted against him.Moreover, they had some weight, did'nt they?I mean, there was a recount of your constituency votes, changing you from 'loser' to 'winner'.He did'nt fret nor cry foul.He merely pointed out the incident.I guess,you can learn one lesson from him-the act of facing unsubstantiated criticism,'political untouchability' and sluggish remarks(the Salman Khan,'Hindu nationalist and puppy remarks blown out of proportion are classic examples)  in return to the economic lessons you try to profess upon him.
Furthermore, there are the brazen controversies of your family's corrupt involvement in Aircel-Maxis scam,2G,Indian Bank favours,Radia tapes. Your comments on Mullaperiyar,Kishtawar Hindu massacres Mumbai blasts, among others are testimony of your intelligence(pun intended).
I would like to end this letter by bringing your attention to your remarks on Modi:Everything that you know about economics can be written on the backside of a match box.
Fitting reply by Arun Jaitely:The greatest economic reformers of India-P.V.Narshima and Vajpayee 2 wernt economists, but they had a vision.A vision and a commitment to the motherland.You dont have to be an economist to realise the tremendous track record of Modi.
My reply:Everything that Rahul Gandhi knows about anything for that matter, can be written on the backside of a match box.
Note :- The gravity of my words is well explained by your adversary - Shri Arun Jaitely's blog.

Your policies are known for leaving behind a huge burden for the next government by giving away subsidies. "The PM had said in September 2012 that money does not grow on trees. If fiscal deficit is unchecked he said, it would be a huge burden on our economy. He said the last time we faced this problem was 1991. But when Rahul Gandhi wanted 12 gas cylinders subsidy, he promptly allowed it. Which led to a burden of 5000 crores on the government. Instead of implementing policies with the long run in hindsight, UPA is always keen in favouring policies to woo voters that are detterimental in the long run. Certainly an educated person such as you must be aware of that, but I guess you are compelled in doing so, under political pressure by your Italian boss.
 

Which government – UPA or NDA – has been better for India’s economic and social indicators? Dismiss the rhetoric and stick to the facts. In this analysis, I’ve chosen 10 key parameters. They cover both economic and social criteria.
1.GDP growth: Average GDP growth in 1998-2004 (NDA) was 6% a year. Average annual GDP growth in 2004-13 (UPA), up to June 30, 2013, was 7.9%.
Caveat 1: The Vajpayee-led NDA battled US-led economic sanctions following the Pokhran-II nuclear test in May 1998. It faced a short but expensive Kargil war in 1999 and the dotcom bust in 2000. When it took office, it had the lag effect of the East Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 to contend with.
Caveat 2: The UPA government, in contrast, benefited from the economic momentum of the high (8.1%) GDP growth rate of 2003-04 – the NDA government’s final year – and rode that wave. The global liquidity bubble in 2004-08 bouyed foreign inflows, helping UPA-I achieve a high GDP growth rate in its first term. The Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008 did hurt the Indian economy but the ensuing US Federal Reserve asset buying programme attracted a steady flow of near-zero interest dollars into India from 2009.
Despite these caveats, the UPA government’s average annual GDP growth rate of 7.9% in 2004-13 clearly scores over the NDA government’s average annual growth rate of 6% (though high inflation boosted the former significantly). First strike to UPA.
2. Current Account Deficit:
2004:  (+) $7.36 billion (surplus).
2013: (-) $80 billion.
The winner here is clearly NDA. It ran a current account surplus in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Under UPA this dipped into deficit from 2006 and has spun downwards since.
3. Trade deficit:
2004: (-) $13.16 billion.
2013: (-) $180 billion.
Again, advantage NDA.
4. Fiscal deficit:
2004: 4.7% of GDP.
2013: 4.8% of GDP.
Not much to choose between the two.
Caveat: This extract from the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) report, published in 2010, explains why and when the UPA government’s fiscal defict began to spiral out of control.
“The central budget in 2008–2009, announced in February 2008, seemed to continue the progress towards FRBM targets by showing a low fiscal deficit of 2.5% of GDP. However, the 2008–2009 budget quite clearly made inadequate allowances for rural schemes like the farm loan waiver and the expansion of social security schemes under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), the Sixth Pay Commission award and subsidies for food, fertilizer, and petroleum.”
“These together pushed up the fiscal deficit sharply to higher levels. There were also off-budget items like the issue of oil and fertilizer bonds, which should be added to give a true picture of fiscal deficit in 2008–2009. The fiscal deficit shot up to 8.9% of GDP (10.7% including off-budget bonds) against 5.0% in 2007–2008 and the primary surplus turned into a deficit of 3.5% of GDP.
“The huge increase in public expenditure in 2008–2009 of 31.2% that followed a 27.4% increase in 2007–2008 was driven by the electoral cycle with parliamentary elections scheduled within a year of the announcement of the budget.”
The recent announcement of the Seventh Pay Commission comes again, not unexpectedly, at the end of an electoral cycle.
5. Inflation:
1998-2004: 5%.
2004-2013: 9% (Both figures are averaged out over their respective tenures).
Advantage again to NDA. Inflation under NDA was on average half that under UPA, leading to the RBI’s controversial tight money policy, high interest rates and rising EMIs.
6. External Debt:
March 2004: $111.6 billion.
March 2013: $390 billion.
The UPA suffers badly in this comparision, a result of lack of confidence in India’s economy and currency following retrospective tax legislation and other regressive policies, especially during UPA-2.
7. Jobs:
1999-2004:  60 million new jobs created.
2004-11: 14.6 million jobs created.
Clearly, the UPA’s big failure has been jobless growth – a bad electoral omen.
8. Rupee:
1998-2004: Variation: Rs. 39 to 49 per $.
2004-13: Variation: Rs. 39 to 68 per $.
(Rupee rose from 40-plus to 39 between October 2007 and April 2008.)
The NDA government’s economic and fiscal policies, despite the various crises of 1998-2000 pointed out earlier, evoked more  global confidence, leading to a relatively stable rupee (Rs. 10 variation) compared to the Rs. 29 variation during UPA’s tenure.
9. HDI:
2004: India was ranked 123rd globally on the human development index (HDI) in 2004, with a score of 0.453.
2013: India has slipped 13 places to 136th globally on the HDI in 2013 with a score of 0.554.
10. Subsidies:
2004: Rs. 44,327 crore.
2013: Rs. 2,31,584 crore.-
Here again, profligate welfarism, as the ADBI report quoted earlier shows, has led to a rising subsidy bill. Worse, a significant amount is siphoned off by a corrupt nexus of politicians, officials and middlemen.
Conclusion: UPA scores above NDA on one of the 10 parameters (GDP growth), is level on one other parameter (fiscal deficit) while NDA does better than UPA on the remaining eight parameters.
Note :- Source :Times of India
The next time you wish to stage an encounter with facts,be aware of those facts.