A Dialogue With Prime Minister Nehru

Most Hindus don’t realize that the most rabid and genocidal Muslim leaders from UP, Bihar, Bengal and Tamil Nadu who worked to partition India, never actually went to Pakistan — they stayed put in India under the protection of their patron saint Nehru. No one has done more damage to Hindus in the entire history of India than this Nehru charlatan. Why did Hindus support such a man to represent their interests in place of Veer Savarkar? Had they gone mad? When Aurobindo Ghosh saw the blind support of Hindus for Gandhi and Nehru, both of whom were actually promoting Muslim interests, he famously said: “Hindus have lost the capacity to think!” This must have been the reason why Hindus kept supporting this Nehru jackass.


A Dialogue With Prime Minister Nehru

Yuvraj Krishan
Feb 2011

Yuvraj Krishan was one of the first officers to be selected for the IAS in 1948. While on probation at Metcalfe House in Delhi, the new recruits hosted Jawaharlal Nehru. Krishan cornered the prime minister and questioned him.

Background to the Dialogue

It was a hot summer evening in 1948. The Indian Administrative Service (LA.S.) Probationers of the first batch recruited through the competitive examination and undergoing training in the I.A.S. Training School, in what was then known as the Metcalfe House in Old Delhi, were playing host to the Prime Minister invited to meet the Probationer Officers were waiting expectantly on the open grassy lawns of the Metcalfe House grounds.

The Prime Minister arrived at about 6.30 P.M. accompanied by his Secretary K. Ram, I.C.S.

After exchange of greetings, the Prime Minister expressed anguish at the bloodshed and the mass migration that had attended Partition and Independence of India. A war was going on between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. The two Governments were struggling with the problems of refugees and their rehabilitation. Even though the migration of population by that time had become a trickle, there was acute tension between India and Pakistan and there was absence of cordial relations between the Muslim and the non-Muslim population of the two countries. The Indian nation was still in the throes of the trauma that accompanied Partition.

Having been uprooted from my home in Lahore, Pakistan, I had been pondering a lot on what the nation and I had gone through. My mind was particularly exercised by the continued stay in India of the leaders of the Muslim League who had brought about Partition and had worked for the establishment of Pakistan. This made me react to the observations made by the Prime Minister and provoked a dialogue.

The Dialogue:

Y. KRISHAN (Y.K.) Probationer : Well sir, those who have brought about Partition have been left behind in the partitioned India. The Muslim League had declared that the Hindus and Muslims were two nations and had asked for partition because they feared that the Muslims, being a minority, would suffer oppression and atrocities at the hands of the Hindu majority. Pakistan was to be their homeland where they could live in freedom from tne tyranny of the non-Muslim majority. But lo! and behold! the vast majority of the Muslims of U.P., Bihar, Central Provinces, Bombay, etc. remained behind in India and did not migrate to the homeland (Pakistan) created for them.

P.M.: We never accepted the two-nation theory though we were driven to accept Partition to avoid bloodshed and to achieve independence. We are not a communal State. The Muslims, who have decided to stay in India, are as much honourable citizens of the country as the members of the majority community. They cannot be victimised in the riew situation for their actions and conduct before and at the time of Partition.
We connot and must not live in the past.

Y.K.: True sir, but the immense suffering the people have undergone and the problems the country is facing are the direct result of the past, of the two-nation theory. In fact, Partition has solved no problems; only it has created new ones.

P.M. : You are too young to understand.
The overwhelming majority of the Indian Muslims are politically backward and have been misled by the pernicious and poisonous propaganda of the Muslim League. So it will be wrong to treat the vast majority of Indian Muslims as being responsible for the ills of our country.

Y.K.: True sir, the vast majority has been misled by the two-nation theory. But this does not absolve the Muslim League leadership: they are the authors* of Partition. And yet, the majority of this leadership has also stayed back in India. The Muslims of Pakistan, West Punjab, N.W.F.P.,Sind and Baluchistan, as such, never wanted or asked for Pakistan. In fact, they did not need to.

There was a pause and silence for a couple of, minutes.

Y.K.: The Raja of Mahamudabad, Begum Aizaz Rasul, Raja of Pirpur, Maulana Hasrat Mohani, etc. from U.P., Syed Hossain Imam from Bihar, M. Mohd. Ismail from Madras, etc., to name a few of the host of Muslim League leaders, have stayed back in India though they had actively worked for the creation of Pakistan as the homeland for the Indian Muslims. There is not an iota of justification for such leaders being allowed to stay in India after having got the country partitioned on the basis of the two-nation theory. They ought to have gone to the homeland they asked for and obtained.

There was again a pause.

P.M. Nehru’s face was flushed. After a brief silence, he resumed.

P.M. : We cannot abandon the nationalist Muslims who had fought and sacrificed for India’s Independence.

Y.K. : But the Congress has already abandoned the true nationalist Muslims, the Khudai Khidmatgars led by the Frontier Gandhi.

P.M. : This was a most painful decision forced on us by the geo-political realities.

Y.K. : I am not sure of the loyalty of the so-called nationalist Muslims after the creation of Pakistan, considering the speeches, (‘mischievous and rabble rousing) of the nationalist Muslim leaders (those who were opposed to Partition) like Dr. Syed Mahmud, Maulana Hafizur Rahman (of Jamiat-ul-ulema-e-Hind) etc. at the Lucknow conference of Mussalman.i.Hind’l (Dec. 1947).

P.M. : This is false, mischievous, a canard intended to defame and denigrate the nationalist Muslims who have played a glorious role in India’s Independence.

Y.K. : The P.M. must be correct on this point. I have perhaps been wrongly informed. But the basic fact remains that the Muslim League leaders and workers from Western U.P.-Meerut, Moradabad, Aligarh, Saharanpur, etc. organised the riots in Rawalpindi in March, 1947 which set the Punjab ablaze. It was not the work of the local Muslims of Rawalpindi in the initial stages but of the Muslim League leaders from U.P. Is it also not shocking that the Muslim League leaders of Rampur State in U.P. should have launched a violent agitation by setting on fire several Government buildings demanding accession of the Rampur State to Pakistan?

The face of the Prime Minister turned red in anger. He started puffing at his silver cigarette-holder.

At this point I had a very strong urge to recall the advice P.M. Nehru had given to the Kashmiri Pandits in 1945 at a meeting in Sopore in the Kashmir Valley that if non-Muslims wanted to live in Kashmir, they should join the National Conference (which was overwhelmingly a Muslim party) or bid good-bye to the country (Kashmir). But sensing the mood of the Prime Minister I was sullen and kept quiet.

The Principal of the Training School M.J. Desai, I.C.S. was visibly feeling uncomfortable and edgy. As there was palpable tension in the atmosphere and Prime Minister Nehru was silent and red faced, the Principal asked for the dinner bell to be rung. This relieved the tension in all of us. We collected our plates and made a bee-line for the dining table.

Post Script:

In retrospect the author believes that if those Muslim League leaders, who had actively worked for the division of the country and the creation of Pakistan on the basis of the two-nation theory and who did not migrate to Pakistan, had publicly denounced the two-nation theory, admitted that the Pirpur Report was false and that the creation of Pakistan was against the interests of the Indian Muslims, this would have gone a long way to heal the wounds of Partition, and promoted reconciliation between the Hindus and Muslims. This would also have softened the hostile Hindu Muslim relations which, unfortunately, continue to be haunted by the ghost of Partition.

Advertisements

73 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

73 responses to “A Dialogue With Prime Minister Nehru

  1. Anonymous

    Nehru, the same guy that screwed the wife of the Queen’s rep. in India.
    Pathetic.

    • What is so important/sacrosant about the Queen’s rep. in India?
      Shoudn’t you feel proud that at least one of us Indians could extract the revenge out of the Monotheist British colonisers by screwing one of their prima donnas. May be, just may be I smell a bit of jealousy here. I know neither Mr Golwalkar, nor Shyamaprasad Mukherjee couldn’t screw her.

      • cnm

        @cynical
        Nothing sacrosanct. But who cares if that raunchy Nehru screwed the whore or was screwed by her. But it is fact that his sleeping with her has cost India immensely. We Hindus are still reaping the poison of his misdeeds.

        • It was a platonic relationship by all accounts. Don’t let your imagination (borne out of average Indian male sexual frustration) run wild.

          • cnm

            @cynical

            You are right I am sexual frustrated. Will you send your sister to me so that I can get over my frustration.

          • cnm

            @cynical, The Escapist

            It is not possible to gauge the wildness of the beast that is Nehru without letting one’s imagination go wild.
            It is a fact that Nehru-Edwina honeymoon has done India in.

            • cnm

              @cynical, The Escapist

              Nehru had nothing, I repeat, nothing original in him. He was a first-rate product of the anti-Hindu factory ( the Educational system) set up by the British in India.An archetypal Brown Sahib. A clone of the colonizers.Gandhi was right, “Jawaharlal was the only Englishman in his camp”. In a sense he was the brightest descendant of monsters like Max mueller, Alexander Hamilton and many others.As for his achievement he must be credited with the feat of turning anti-Hinduism(secularism) as the state religion of India. Beyond that he was a big zero, a non-achiever.Of course he was unsurpassable in the act of licking the bottom of the whites. It was his weakness towards the white skin of the Mountbattens that incited him to scorn the sane advice of the great Patel in connection to Kashmir. Result? Kashmir burning today. There is no end to bloodshed there. Who is responsible for that? Only and only that abominable creature Nehru.

  2. som

    Ghost of partion means the dipression of a group of muslim community had felt that they had degraded from special previlazed class to ordinary citizen in Independent
    India.

    • Indian Realist

      Agree — Sita Ram Goel also said that the prospect of loss of privileges over Hindus in independent India was projected by Muslims as their oppression. They couldn’t tolerate living as equals with Hindus.

      • cnm

        The 1857 Sepoy mutiny was essentially a Muslim uprising against the British for the restoration of Muslim rule. The Mutiny arisose out of the feeling of frustration that the gripped the Muslim community esp the Muslim elites in the wake of their loosing power and authority to non-Muslims and here in this case to the Britishers.

        • @cnm
          That’s not entirely true. Hindu nobles and the landed gentry also revolted, and on occasions fought side by side. Though different native powers fought for different causes, but the larger and common issue was same for both sides i.e protection of their property, privilege and power.

          • cnm

            @ cynical
            I think you have marked the word essentially. Of course some Hindu chieftains had participated in the Mutiny but the purpose behind their taking part in the Mutiny was at variance with the Muslims who wanted the restoration of Muslim supremacy they had lost to the Hindus. Now let me now quote the letter of James Outram written to Dalahousie on 7 jan.1858 which proves me right.
            ” It is absurd to call this a military rebellion—- that it could not have occurred had the Sepoys remained faithful, is of course indisputable.But the revolt itself is the fruit of Mussulaman intrigue, in the hopes of gaining empire at the expiration of the century during which it had been held by the conquerors from the west. With this object they persuaded the wretched Sepoys, the most credulous and childish race of the Hindoos, that we were about to ruin their caste prior to the forcible introduction of Christian faith.”

        • Jaipal

          @cnm and Indian Realist,

          About the 1857 uprising, it was actually planned and done by
          the Hindus, not the Muslims. Muslims actually had no problem
          with remaining under British rule if the Hindus also were to remain
          under it. The residues of Islamic imperialism were feeding off
          of British imperialism.

          The 1857 uprising was a planned uprising by Hindus.
          It was planned by Tatya Tope along with Baija Bai Shinde.
          It was a Hindu articulated war of independence.

          Read this book “Operation Red Lotus” by Parag Tope.
          His work brings out a number of primary sources and unpublished
          evidence on 1857 AD.

      • som

        Actually, in 1760,60%area was under Maratha rule,only 25% was under Muslim rule and rest area dominated by Maharaja Ranjeet Singh.
        So this is not true that Britishers snached India and
        had given to Hindus.
        Actually, after 3 Anglo-Maratha War ,Marathas’s lost
        their territories.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, that’s correct, I’ve personally met muslims who believe that they should have had the reigns of power, and of course they thought that they are superior to Hindus.

        • Indian Realist

          Tell those jokers that the Marathas had captured Delhi from the Muslims, and the Mughal emperor Shah Alam was getting a pension from them. The war for India was fought between Marathas and British, not between British and Muslims.

          • ray

            Shah Alam II (1728–1806 CE), also known as Ali Gauhar, was the eighteenth Mughal Emperor and son of the murdered Alamgir IIpower was so depleted by the end of his reign that it led to a saying ‘The kingdom of Shah Alam is from Delhi to Palam’. Palam is a suburb of Delhi.
            He also appointed Mahadji Scindia as the Vakil e mutalik of the Mughal Emperor and awarded him the holy places of Mathura and Vrindavan. Agra fort was handed over to Scindia and a farman banning cow slaughter was proclaimed in the Mughal Empire.

          • @Indian Realist
            “Marathas had captured Delhi from the Muslims.”
            I see. Pray, tell me after how many years from Qutb-ud-din Aybak? And also tell me the name of that extra large Maratha who sat on the Delhi throne after capturing it from the Muslims?

            • Indian Realist

              Please educate yourself about Indian history and just don’t believe what you are told by the Imam on Jumma. India did not come under Muslim rule the day Qutub-ud-din-Aibak’s pony crossed the Indus and farted here. Hindus killed Mohd. Ghori while he was sleeping in a tent with three Hindu captive women and they avenged his raid and the deaths he had caused by his invasion. He had to pay with his life and was stabbed 27 times. The rule of Delhi Sultanate did not extend beyond 200 km from Delhi throughout their existence. All they could manage was plundering raids to the South. Vijaynagar empire showed the middle finger to Muslims for 200 years. Lodhi’s were trembling n front of Rana Sanga. Humayun was chased out of India by Hemu and couldn’t return for 15 years.

              Akbar had to shake hands with Rajputs to not meet the same fate. Marathas under Shivaji had a bamboo up Aurangzeb’s backside. Then the Sikhs came and Afghan women used to put their babies to sleep saying “Beta so jaa, varna Ranjit Singh aa jaye ga.” The Mughal “emperor” shah alam was receiving a pension from the Marthas within 50 years of Aurangzeb’s death. The battle for Delhi and the Mughal seat of power was fought between Marathas and Brits (under General Lake) in 1804 on the banks of the Yamuna. It was called Battle of Patparganj and was fought on the exact spot where Noida Golf Course exists now.

              We Hindus are still a billion strong and still showing the middle finger to the momins even after 800 years. Iqbal knew Indian history better than you. He said: “The ship of Islam sailed from Arabia conquering everyone on its way, and then came to India and sank in the Ganges.” So please cure yourself of this delusion that “We Muslims ruled India for 800 years.” This opium Pakistanis smoke these days. It’s amazing — the Hindu cowards who got defeated and converted, these days they boast of superiority over the existing Hindus by cleverly pretending that they were also the invaders! If you were so dandy, why did you get defeated and converted? And if one momin is equal to ten dhoti-wearing baniyas, then how many wars has Pakistani army won against India till date?

              Please read this post of mine for some education and see the map:
              http://indianrealist.com/2009/12/24/did-the-brits-take-india-from-muslims/

              • Jaipal

                @Indian Realist,

                Great answer. You said everything I was about to say.
                About Mohammad Ghori, I have read that he was actually defeated
                in battle and killed, namely the Battle of Dhanyak in 1206 AD,
                at the hands of the Hindu Gakkhars.

                The Hindu Ghakkahar commander’s name was Aniruddh Khokkhar.

                About Humayun’s defeat and chasing out, was it by Sher Shah Suri or
                Hemu? Could you tell me?

                • Indian Realist

                  Ghori was killed in sleep by Gakkhars (now called Khokhars in Pakistan). It was a raid by 22 men who entered his tent and stabbed him in sleep to avenge the deaths of their tribesmen. The guy, like any good momin, was sleeping with three Hindu princes who had been captured in battle. These people have brains in their penis — they can’t think of anything else except sex and violence. Humayun was defeated by Sher Shah Suri but the battle was led by his General, Hemu.

                  • Jaipal

                    @Indian Realist,

                    Thank you for mentioning that Hemu defeated Humayuun.
                    Did Hemu defeat Humayun in all the battles or in a few?

                    Do you have a source for the above which I can consult?

                    About Muhammad Ghori, actually it seems that he was defeated
                    in battle by the Ghakkhars. According to Jatt researcher,
                    Dilip Singh Ahlawat, in his book “Jat Viron Ka Itihaas”.

                    Just take a look at this link: http://www.jatland.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-792.html

                • Shlok

                  @Cynical, you challenged us. You got the reply from Indian Realist and Jaipal. Now either give us the answers or otherwise drown yourself in your filthy alcohol

                  • @Shlok
                    What reply are you talking about? You think they can fool me just hiding behind a 200 words not actually answering my question. I repeat, tell me who was that extra large Maratha who sat on the Delhi throne when they captured Delhi from Muslims?

                    • Indian Realist

                      It was a strategic decision of the Marathas not to execute the emperor and let him continue as the puppet figure head (it was Sonia Gandhi-MMS arrangement). The reason was that the Mughal rulers of different provinces (governors who declared themselves as independent Nawabs and stopped sending tribute to Delhi) still deferred to him and sought the emperor’s approval to lend legitimacy for their reign. The emperor was useful for the Marathas to legtimize their rule over territories they had captured from Muslims.

                      Marathas defeated the Nizam of Hyderabad too in battle and could have killed him but he was allowed to live when he relinquished control over substantial territory. It is like saying that MMS was a huge ruler of India and Sonia Gandhi was nothing because she never actually sat on the throne.

              • Jaipal

                @Indian Realist,

                Even before Qutubuddin Aibak appeared, the Muslims were
                successively defeated and kept in check for 570 years by the
                Hindu Kings. The Hindu Rajput Kings defeated the Arabs 30
                times in battle without a problem, lasting for 300 years.
                Compare this amazing Hindu record against the Arabs with the utterly
                pathetic record of the Persians. The Persians, who had a large
                empire, were quickly defeated and overrun in just 5 years.
                The Arabs couldn’t overrun India even after trying for nearly 300
                years! Compare this with what happened in much of the world
                at the time.

                There are Hindu inscriptions between 1030 AD to 1170 AD,
                recording many Hindu battle victories against the Turks
                even after the death of Mahmud Ghazni.

                According to KS Lal, there are HUNDREDS of inscriptions
                recording Hindu battle victories against the Delhi Sultanate, even
                after the 1200’s AD.

                Along with this, we know how the Marathas, Sikhs, Vijayanagar,
                Hindu Ahoms, Hindu Orissa, Hindu Jatts all fought the Muslims
                and inflicted many defeats on them.

            • cnm

              @cynical

              Now do not indulge in escapist fantasy. It is our contention that Marathas had captured Delhi from the Muslims. If you have anything counter to that then produce that. That is how a debate is developed.

        • Jaipal

          @Anonymous,

          What superiority?? Hindu forces successively kept Muslims in
          check for the first 570 years. Even after they broke through,
          Hindu kings kept fighting them and managed to inflict HUNDREDS
          of military defeats on the Muslims. As you know, the Hindu Marathas
          were unbeatable for the Mughals and the Mughals got crushed
          by them.

          If Muslims really were superior, then why they could not convert
          India into a Muslim country then? Why they could not build
          any real long lasting Muslim empire?? The Mughal empire
          could only come into existence because of Akbar’s policy
          of reconciliation with the Hindu Rajputs. In other words,
          the Hindus were the stronger force even then.

          Muslims just can’t digest the fact that inspite of trying for centuries,
          India and Hindus were simply unbeatable. Their superiority complex
          is just a mask to hide their feeling of being humiliated.

      • som

        In 1757,Raghunath rao defeated Afgan garrison and founded Maratha empire in Delhi.

        • karan

          In 1789,the pension the pension of Mughal Emperor ,Shah Alam of Delhi,
          was set thirteen lakh rupees(1.3 millions) per year a Mughal was only
          symbolically under his control.
          The real power lay elsewhere ,it was not with English,yet,but with the Marathas,Under Mahadji Shinde ,the Maratha’s implicitly controlled India Largest empires.

      • That’s true. No argument on that. But the attitude of certain provincial leaders of Congress having right wing leanings has added fuel to the fire.

        • som

          @Cynical
          Congress having right wing leanings and Congress having left wing leanings,that is your choice and no argument on that.

      • Jaipal

        @Indian Realist,

        Indian Muslims have such a warped sense of history.
        The fact is the Indian Muslim, specifically speaking, had no rights
        or priviledges. This was reserved only for the foreign Muslims.
        The Foreign Muslim invaders considered Indian Muslims as
        inferiors and always treated them with suspicion and disdain.

        These foreign Muslims wanted priviledge because they were a tiny
        minority in a hostile, alien country where their position was
        always unstable and potentially fragile.

        The fact is the converted Muslims (ie.Indian Muslims) had a much
        lower position than the Hindus.

  3. cnm

    The idea of Hindu-Muslim unity was a complete misnomer. There was nothing like Hindu-Muslim unity in India.Not before the arrival of the British and not during the British rule,except for the brief periods of of 1857 Sepoy Mutiny and and 1919 Khilafat movement. Interestingly, there is no Hindu-Muslim unity even after independence.

    • karan

      @cnm
      The idea of Hindu-Muslim unity….WHO CARES???
      Neither Gandhi nor Muslim league (sabko apni-apni pari thi -everbody had their own dream – but the common objective -the partition)
      Gandhi, in fact criticised the local Indian National Congress leader Aruna Asaf Ali, who was one of the few prominent political leaders of the time to offer her support for the mutineers, stating she would rather unite Hindus and Muslims on the barricades than on the constitutional front.
      GANDHI’S CRITICISM ALSO BELIES THE SUBMISSION TO THE LOOMING REALITY OF PARTITION OF INDIA, HAVING STATED”If the union at the barricade is honest then there must be union also at the constitutional front.”(The Royal Indian Navy mutiny on 18 February 1946 found support throughout British India, from Karachi to Calcutta and ultimately came to involve 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors).
      OBVIOUSLY Gandhi’s (and the Congress’s) concluded from the Quit India Movement in 1942 when central control quickly dissolved under the impact of British repression, and localised actions, including widespread acts of sabotage, continued well into 1943. It had been the conclusion that the rapid emergence of militant mass demonstrations in support of the sailors WOULD ERODE CENTRAL POLITICAL AUTHOTITY OF CONGRESS AND MUSLIM LEAGUE, IF AND WHEN TRANSFER OF POWER OCCURRED. . The Muslim League had observed passive support for the “Quit India” campaign among its supporters and, devoid of communal clashes despite the fact that it was opposed by the then collaborationist Muslim League. It is possible that the League also realised the likelihood of a destabilised authority as and when power was transferred.
      This certainly is reflected on the opinion of the sailors who participated in the strike (NEITHER SUPPORTED BY CONGRESS NOR MUSLIM LEAGUE)
      SO,the idea of Hindu-Muslim unity….WHO CARES???
      Neither Gandhi nor Muslim league (sabko apni-apni pari thi -everbody had their own dream – but the common objective -the partition)

      • som

        The Indian nationalist leaders, most notably Gandhi and the Congress leadership apparently had been concerned that the revolt would compromise the strategy of a negotiated and constitutional settlement, but they sought to negotiate with the British AND NOT WITHIN THE TWO PROMINENT SYMBOL OF RESPECTIVE NATIONALISM —-THE CONGRESS AND THE MUSLIM LEAGUE.
        By March 1947, the Congress had limited partition to only Punjab and Bengal (thus Jinnah’s famous moth-eaten PakistanI remark).

  4. cnm

    Considering the separatist attitude of Indian Muslims since independence there remains little doubt that it was in execution of a well-thought-out-plan that the Muslims stayed back in India after partition. The main motive behind their staying back in India was the further partition of India. In his well acclaimed book “Islam and Religious Riots– A case Study Riots and Wrongs” RNP Singh, former Intelligence Bureau Officer, writes
    “The Muslims, who stayed back in India,were perhaps hopeful of further partition of India if situation so demanded.Shortly after partition,the views of one Qamruddin Khan,Spokesperson AMU,appeared in the ‘light of Lahore’.It advised the Indian Muslims to lie low for sometime owing to tactical reasons and that soon they should stand up for a similar cause,that is,to demand partition of Muslim majority areas of India………………
    the above mentioned suggestion of Qamruddin khan seemed to have worked well. The Muslims in India lay low for some time. immediately after two years, the Muslim league became active in Kerala and by 1960 several Muslim organisations were established in the country.the Indian Muslims came up with a three dimensional claim,visually the Muslims in India are a minority,the Urdu was the language of the Muslims,and the Islamic culture should get all protection either directly or indirectly.The manifestation of Indian Muslim mind spoke for itself during Indo-Pak war in 1965 .A week before the Indo-Pak war,Maulana Maddi,during his interview with Dawat had categorically mentioned
    that the Pakistani infiltrators had kept up the pride of jehad.”

    No Indian Govt. can ever dream of solving Hindu-Muslim problem so long as they ignore this separatist mind of the Indian Muslims.

  5. karan

    The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty starts with the Mughal man named Ghiyasuddin Ghazi. He was the City Kotwal i.e. police officer of Delhi prior to the uprising of 1857, under the Mughal rule. After capturing Delhi in 1857, in the year of the mutiny, the British were slaughtering all Mughals everywhere. The British made a thorough search and killed every Mughal so that there were no future claimant to the throne of Delhi. The Hindus on the other hand were not targeted by the British unless isolated Hindus were found to be siding with the Mughals, due to past associations. Therefore, it became customary for many Mohammedans to adopt Hindu names. So, the man Ghiyasuddin Ghazi (the word means kafir-killer) adopted a Hindu name Gangadhar Nehru and thus saved his life by the subterfuge. Ghiyasuddin Ghazi apparently used to reside on the bank of a canal (or Nehr) near the Red Fort. Thus, he adopted the name ‘Nehru’ as the family name. Through out the world, we do not find any descendant other than that of Gangadhar, having the surname Nehru. The 13th volume ofthe “Encyclopedia of Indian War of Independence” (ISBN:81-261-3745-9) by M.K. Singh states it elaborately. The Government of India have been hiding this fact. – See more at: http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.info/2011/05/some-hidden-facts-about-the-nehru-gandhi-dynasty/#sthash.rtgoVyAp.dpuf
    http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.info/2011/05/some-hidden-facts-about-the-nehru-gandhi-dynasty/

  6. Watch this space. Next in coming are ‘A conversation with the cook’, ‘A conversation with the chauffeur’, and finally ‘A conversation with the owner of the Grosser nearest to the PM’s residence’. History in the making.

    • som

      Cynical
      This is the right place where ,it will be debated that just being in print do make words worth reading or not,either it is Pedagogy or not.

    • Shyam

      @Cynical
      This is the right place where ,it will be debated that just being in print do make words worth reading or not,either it is ‘A conversation with the cook’ or not.either it is ‘ ‘A conversation with the chauffeur’ or not. ‘A conversation with the owner of the Grosser nearest to the PM’s residence’or not and finally this is not the part of”Discovery of India”,
      “A Glimpse of World History”,so worth reading or not.

  7. som

    It was platonic or non-platonic and about
    your status having more than average indian that we have not,this matter is also
    debatable as we know this is the correct
    place for that.

  8. som

    @Cynical
    And that became” the first mutiny in british army*.The second mutiny in british army took place with the help of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose,when mutiny of naval army had took place.And finally britishers escaped from this country.
    And we can give credit to all non congress
    movement for that.

    • ravi

      @som
      The Royal Indian Navy mutiny (also called the Royal Indian Revolt or Bombay Mutiny) encompasses a total strike and subsequent revolt by Indian sailors of the Royal Indian Navy on board ship and shore establishments at Bombay (Mumbai) harbour on 18 February 1946. From the initial flashpoint in Bombay, the revolt spread and found support throughout British India, from Karachi to Calcutta and ultimately came to involve 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors.

      The strike found immense support among the Indian population, already gripped by the stories of the Indian National Army(Ajad Hind fauj of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose). Naval officers and men began calling themselves the “Indian National Navy” and offered left-handed salutes to British officers. despite assurances of the good services of the Congress and the Muslim League widespread arrests were made. These were followed up by courts martial and large scale dismissals from the service. None of those dismissed were reinstated into either the Indian or Pakistani navies after independence. The strike soon spread to other parts of India. The ratings in Calcutta, Madras, Karachi and Vizag also went on strike with the slogans “Strike for Bombay”, “Release 11,000 INA prisoners” and “Jai Hind”.
      On 19 February, the Tricolour was hoisted by the ratings on most of the ships and establishments.

      • ravi

        The weekly intelligence summary issued on the 25th of March, 1946 admitted that the Indian army, navy and air force units were no longer trustworthy, and, for the army, “only day to day estimates of steadiness could be made”.
        The situation has been thus been deemed the “Point of No Return.”

        • karan

          SO,FOR THIS WE CAN GIVE CREDIT TO NETAJI SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE (EXPELLED OR RESIGNED FROM CONGRESS PARTY) AND HIS AJAD HIND FAUJ.

  9. Cynical,
    Sorry dear, I think your diatribe smacks more of your total nescience, need your updating than making easy armchair raunchy comments. Platonic word was used by her daughter Pamela (Mountbatten) Hicks on Indian TV, if I remember correct on controversial Karan Thapar’s aptly named Devil’s Advocate or Devil Advocate. You couldn’t have expected her then saying otherwise but it is well described in several articles and even books have described it detailing candidly. You need to update. Why should a woman visit an adult widowed fellow in late nights till the daybreak? Even in daily Telegraph (Calcutta) posted a nice big essay clearly mentioning their such posturing even during the daytime in the backyard garden. Diurnal Platonic love and nocturnal casting couch love.

    • @osudrania
      Your filthy insinuations are in expected line from a typical Indian male grown up in a sexually oppressed (and suppressed) society, who can’t think of any other form of connection between a man and a woman other than sexual. No wonder India is famouus for its rapists.

      • ravi

        @Cynical
        Our good insinuations are in expected line from a honest Indian male grown up in with idealistic approach society, who know of any other form of connection between a man and a woman other than sexual. No wonder India is famouus for its idealistic approach .
        LORD Krishna had a total of 16,108 wives, of which only eight were his princely wives and the other 16,100 were rescued from Narakasura. They had been forcibly kept in his palace and after Krishna had killed Narakasura he rescued these 16,100 women and freed them. However, all of them returned to Krishna saying that because they had been kept by Narakasura none of their families would accept them and also nobody would marry any of them. So to stop them from being unprotected Krishna married them all on a single day, by taking 16,100 forms. He gave them shelter in his new palace and a respectful place in society. However keeping his princely wives as wives he never had any relations with the other women, and many Hindu scriptures describe them as dancing around Krishna, singing songs of praise.

        • karan

          APART FROM THAT:-
          “Gandhiji advised the women in East Bengal to commit suicide by poison or some other means to avoid dishonour. Yesterday he told the women to suffocate themselves or to bite their tongues to end their lives. But two doctors, BC Roy of Calcutta and Sushila Nayyar had informed him that such means of suicide were impossible. The only way known to medicine for instant self-immolation was a strong dose of poison. If this was so, he, the speaker,would advise everyone running the risk of dishonour to take poison before submission to dishonour. He had, however, heard from those given to yogic practices that it was possible by some yogic practice to end life. He would try and inquire. His was not an idle idea. He meant all he said. ”
          (Speech at a Prayer Meeting, New Delhi, October 18, 1946,CWMG Vol. 92, page 355)

          • som

            @karan
            True, Gandhi & Nehru are the heros to world but India — na-na-na naare naare — we remember them ONLY on 2nd October &14 November every year and DD telecasts that Ben Kingsley portrayal — congressmen pay homage and sing bhajans Vaishnav Jan to tene kahiye — and that’s it.

        • cnm

          @ Ravi

          Dear brother,Please do not teach Hinduism to this atheist . That is an insult to Hinduism. Whenever any atheist runs out of ideas to argue in a sane and dignified way he resorts to deride our Devas and Devis. That is how he evades a defeat in a debate.

      • Shlok

        @Cynical, abhey sharaabi bhewre, apni bakwaas jaake masjid ke baahar kar jahaan par yeh mullah log chhoti ladkiyo ko bhi nahin chhodte? Hain dum?

  10. Sindhus

    It is due to these “nationalist” Muslims that Hindus remain as third grade citizens in their motherland.

    The idea of secularism goes bust the moment when someone goes to Aligarh (AMU, yes!), Hyderabad, Calcutta, Bombay, Old Delhi (not to forget, Bareily, Lucknow and Kashmir) and witnesses the unbound love for Pakistan in these muslims and hate towards India. In fact, one would wonder (by seeing the flags, beef shops, and TV channels) whether these places are in India!

    Recently, one member of MIM (MP or MLA, I am unsure) openly claimed that musslims will take Redfort, Charminar and Taj Mahal to Pakistan in the face of a war, and ridiculed Hindus in a public meeting. What happened to secularists then?

    Have you noticed that every speech uttered by these so called leaders, secularists and “nationalists” begin and end with “Hum” “Humare” etc. meaning Muslims? There are plenty of haj houses in the country and special offices for them. But I am unable to go to Kailash Mansarovar for the high fees (about rs 50,000 of which is for Chinese Visa), very stringent health requirements and limited seats through government agencies. Why can no secular Indian speak about this injustice?

    What does Nehru and his dynasty think about unemployed Kashmir Pandits doing petty jobs in major metros for a living, while Muslim land lords and grossly incompetent (at most times) in these places avail reservations?

  11. Sindhus

    It’s surprising that this IAS probationer is alive! Khemka will be removed soon by Vadra and other Italian goons. All thanks to Nehru and his so-called dynasty!!

  12. Sindhus

    Who can forget Nehru saying “not even a blade of grass grows” in a Parliament debate about Aksai Chin to defend his cowardice and justify the Chinese taking away a part of India.

    Most of India’s present and past sufferings are due to Nehru.

  13. som

    Had Gandhi (and Nehru) not been around, the country of India would have been a safer place without strikes,hunger strikes,dirty politicians,caste divisions. Gandhi (and Nehru)was architect of coining the word Harijan thus throwing the downcastes to eternal self stigmatisation and and despise from all. Gandhi destroyed Indian civilisation once for ever,particularly the ancient “Sanatan Dharma’by dostorting its philosophy to suit his madness of personal ego and to enslave the minds of illiterate innocent Indians. Gandhi (and Nehru)succeeded in destroying what Indian saints and sages took thousands of years to built in face of foreign marauders.Had Gandhi (and Nehru)not been around Indian people and revolutionaries would have thrown out the British in 1919 itself.But Gandhi(and Nehru) stole the leadership from patriots and led India to hell from which it has still not recovered and has leapt into the clutches of cannibalistic looting Indian politicians.The present lot of dirty politicians are true image of this dastardly devil.Gandhi (and Nehru)for the sake of truth and peace must be excommunicated from the humanity as his true face was of a Satan in human garb and truly an epitome of treachery and double speak and filth. Gandhi (and Nehru) was exact reverse of Vivekananda,Mira,Shankara,Aurobindo,Budha, and above all of true peace.

    • Indian Realist

      The biggest sin of these two charlatans was not allowing full transfer of population. The jokers died soon after and we Hindus are now left behind to enjoy the “love” of Muslims.

    • karan

      Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience.
      Ahimsa (non violence) for whom? For hindu community ,according to Gandhi they should follow non violence measures for British invaders and violent follower of other faith (because they are brothers) not for enemy of Jews.

      • Indian Realist

        Strangely, Gandhi never recommended non-violence to Muslims or the Brits, but only to the Hindus. The more I read his philosophy, the more I find what an idiot and a pretender he was. A shame on Hindus of that time who couldn’t see through his game of faking wisdom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s