Monday, December 15, 2014

On Christmas Day Modi's Stealth Hindutva


On Christmas Day Modi's Stealth Hindutva Govt backtracks ...
15 hours ago - On Christmas Day Modi's Stealth Hindutva Govt backtracks, Xmas holiday on - Project online, if students wish so Basant Kumar Mohanty John Abraham at a ...

National » Other States

Updated: December 16, 2014 00:05 IST

Preparations for conversion event kept under wraps

Mohammad Ali
A day after the Aligarh administration banned their religious conversion programme on December 25, Hindutva groups leading the campaign seem to have rethought their strategy.
The venue of the Ghar vapsi programme may be shifted at the last minute to places such as Hathras, Eta and Bulandshahr, and the ban may be legally challenged too.
The Dharam Jagaran Samiti, an Agra-based RSS affiliate, had last week announced the “biggest ever” religious conversion of about 4,000 Christians and Muslims in Aligarh. Following the ban, most of the office-bearers of the samiti, including its area chief Rajeshwar Singh, have gone underground and the preparations have been kept under wraps. Organising the programme has become a matter of prestige and a rallying point for Hindutva groups which have come together and dared the local administration to stop it. Office-bearers of the Bajrang Dal, Hindu Yuva Vahini, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad and Dharam Jagaran Samiti met here on Sunday.
A new set of office-bearers have been announced as the existing names are on the intelligence radar.
The Hindutva outfit is ready with hundreds of affidavits which will be signed by people converting to Hinduism. The volunteers of DJS told The Hindu: “As a precautionary measure, we are ready with affidavits stating that the person is converting to Hinduism out of his/her own will and no inducement of any kind has been offered.” The final decision about the venue and further details are likely to be finalised in a week.
Amid the controversy, nobody has any idea who will be converted. Even the office-bearers of the DJS are tight-lipped about the identity of the people who will come into the Hindu fold.
According to Abhiram Goyal , convenor DJS, Aligarh, the volunteers are visiting villages on the outskirts of Aligarh, Agra, Bulandshahr which have minority Christian and Muslim population. “We will have some idea how many people have signed up for our Ghar vapsi programme in a week. By December 22, we will have the list of people and you can talk to them and find out for yourself that we are not forcing anybody,” Mr. Goyal maintained.

John Abraham at a Christmas event
for underprivileged children in New Delhi
on Monday. Picture by Ramakant Kushwaha
New Delhi, Dec. 15: Schoolchildren can enjoy their Christmas holiday, after all.
If they still want to take part in an online essay-writing contest, they are welcome to.
The government today climbed down from its move asking the centrally controlled CBSE and the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) to organise a host of events and observe Good Governance Day on December 25 that would have meant keeping schools open on a holiday.
In a press note, the HRD ministry pared down the list of activities - that included quiz contests, online and offline essay-writing competitions on topics related to good governance and screening of documentaries - to just online essays and even made that "completely voluntary".
The note also said December 25 would remain a holiday.
"This online essay competition is completely voluntary and the students if they so desire can participate from their homes.... There is no requirement for any school to remain open that day and the school vacations will be adhered to," the note said in response to media reports.
The climbdown came amid a raging controversy, with several academics and activists criticising the earlier decision to keep schools open on a day the world would celebrate Christ's birthday.
According to the now-scrapped decision, the NVS, which runs 600-odd free residential schools (JNVs), was to screen documentaries and films highlighting good governance and problem-solving on Christmas Day.
Students of schools affiliated to the CBSE - the country's largest school board - were expected to take part in essay-writing and one-act play contests on December 24 and 25.
The CBSE had not issued any circular to affiliated schools, but a letter from NVS commissioner G.S. Bothyal on December 10 made it clear what the activities should be.
"You are requested to ensure that Good Governance day is celebrated in all JNVs under your region. A consolidated report specifying activities carried out in all JNVs is to be submitted by email along with photographs/video recordings to this office on 25th December 2014," the letter to regional deputy commissioners and principals of nearly 600 JNV schools said.
Since NVS schools are affiliated to the CBSE, the letter also touched upon the activities the CBSE would ask its affiliated schools to do. The events were open to students of other boards too.
In a fresh letter today, Bothyal asked NVS officials to wait. "Since the CBSE has not yet issued any circular so far regarding the activities to be undertaken on (the) 25th of December, 2014, you are requested to await the issuance of the CBSE circular before taking any further action," the letter said.
Sources told this newspaper the letter followed instructions from the HRD ministry. Bothyal was not available for comment.
The ministry's note said the JNVs would observe December 25 as a public holiday. But since these were residential schools, they would function "because children (would) continue to remain there". Thus children, the note added, "will have the opportunity to participate if they wish to in (the) essay competition".
The note is silent on whether the JNV or CBSE schools would conduct any other activity. Sources in the ministry said there was no clarity on this.
Kiran Bhatti, a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research and a former member of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, said expecting students to voluntarily take part in essay-writing contests on Christmas Day was "uncalled for".
"They could have asked the students to participate in any competition on any other day during the winter break. Why on that specific day? One does wonder whether such a competition would have been held on Diwali," she said.
Ravi Sagar, an educationist working for the promotion of education among minorities in Assam, said holding any event on Christmas, although voluntary, amounted to depriving Christian students.
"Whether you write essays online sitting at home or in a classroom, it is a school activity. If the activity is for a good cause, every student should get an equal opportunity to participate," Sagar said. "But here, one religious group is being kept out."

Source: Telegraph India

Recent Messages (114)

  • Slumdog Modi Goes to New York jai Ho! | So Sue me
    Oct 2, 2014 – 4 days ago – 1 day ago – September 27, 2014 elcidharth Leave a … 14, Australia, 35987, 0.2 % … Bangladesh, Afghanistan as these countries hate Modi because his …. Happy 125th Birthday Jawaharlal Nehru · Bye Bye Earth, Hello … Select Month, November 2014 (76), October 2014 (199), September …
  • November – 2013 – My Sister Marilyn Monroe – Page 22
    Nov 29, 2013 – Narendra Modi shocks Congress, promises to return land in Rajasthan Posted by: … Nov 29: Narendra Modi, PM candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), …. I hate censorship, 979, 0.15 % …. Sid Harth @elcidharth, 745, 0.11 % …… Nov 14, 2013 – BANGALORE: Intent on preventing gaffes in BJP’s prime …
  • November – 2013 – My Sister Marilyn Monroe – Page 126
    Nov 14, 2013 – Modi hits back at tea-seller remark, says it reflects SP ‘mentality’ … a dig on Congress, Modi said, “They fear, they would lose power in 2014 and …… 13 Gender Related Development Index (GDI) 0.542 0.590 14 GDI Rank …. Narendra Modi claiming that Pt Jawaharlal Nehru had not attended ….. elcidharth
  • Vacuous Media Sleazeballs Moralize Against Mohan Bhagwat…/vacuous-media-sleazeballs-moralize-against-m…
    Jan 8, 2013 – That the English media vampires hate the RSS because of their Maculayite … they have historically characterized the RSS, again, taking a leaf out of Nehru’s book. …. Calling for the “sudden removal” of Narendra Modi? … Mehfil in Monghyar on 20 November 1949 “The allegations against RSS of violence …
  • cogito ergo sum: Mythology
    Jun 14, 2011 – Published: Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011, 15:36 IST | Updated: Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011, 16:34 IST …. elcidharth‎ Google Beagle Oops, Bugle, Oops, Panda: Sid Harth …… God help us if UPA comes to power in 2014 again and baby becomes ….. Let us all bury the oldies, Advani, Modi, Bal Thackeray, mini meow of …
  • Devil-may-care: Sid Harth: July 2012 – cogito ergo sum
    Jul 23, 2012 – Doubling of debt, biggest tax increase in 2014 coming up, highest … Massive Republican failure people – vote accordingly in November. … Mr. Cohen, I hate to break it to you but Mitt did flip-flop on releasing tax …… 7 minutes ago – May 25, 2012 – Modi into the national arena, ……
  • cogito ergo sum: May 2012
    May 25, 2012 – Modi into the national arena, otherwise its doomsday for BJP in the next general elections. …. … Sep 14, 2011 – I have just read the most monumentally stupid article in ….. Nov 28, 2011 – For American liberals, Paul Krugman’s twice-a-week New York …,d.aWw

    Search Results

  • Modi Hates Nehru | So Sue me
    6 hours ago – Modi Hates Nehru … TNN| Nov 14, 2014, 05.45 AM IST … It has been unimpressed by Modi’s decision to mark Nehru’s birthday on Friday by …
  • Smriti Irani Hates German | So Sue me
    5 hours ago – Smriti Irani Hates German. November 14, 2014 … KV students. by G Pramod Kumar Nov 14, 2014 21:15 IST … Previous PostModi Hates Nehru …
  • Modi’s Idiot-Talk | So Sue me
    Oct 31, 2014 – NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday raked up the … of Jawahar Lal Nehru and those of the Nehru-Gandhi family in higher regard over others. ….. 7 days ago – 6 hours ago – October 24, 2014 elcidharth Leave a comment. …. Nov 14, 2013 – Modi hits back at tea-seller remark, says it reflects …
  • Modi Hates, Oops, Loves Muslims | So Sue me
    Sep 19, 2014 – 5 hours ago – Sep 9, 2014 – September 8, 2014 elcidharth Leave a …. Modi has a long history of hate speeches, mostly against so called …. It is only possible with BJP persons, Congress and Nehru’s only divide … 6 days ago – Express News Service | New Delhi | Posted: September 12, 2014 10:14 pm …
  • ‘badtameez’ Modiji ka ‘intarakshun.’ | So Sue me
    Oct 26, 2014 – Let us think above politics: PM Modi tells NDA MPs. RELATED. … 14 hours ago – Jul 5, 2014 – July 5, 2014 elcidharth … … मंगल प्रभात …
  • Modi Loves Putin but Hates Obama | So Sue me
    Jul 19, 2014 – 03:14 PM ET. … 2 days ago – Malaysia Plane Crash, Live July 17, 2014 elcidharth Leave a … No matter the truth, Modi will become India’s next prime minister after ….. On a week where Nehru’s ineffectiveness in the Indo-China war is ….. Select Month, November 2014 (15), October 2014 (199), September …
  • Modi Hates Muslims, Loves jews | So Sue me
    Jul 18, 2014 – Modi Hates Muslims, Loves jews. July 18, 2014 elcidharth Leave a comment. An Israeli Shot In India’s Arm As New Delhi goes arms shopping, …
  • Mahabharat Mataji ki Jai | So Sue me
    Oct 11, 2014 – October 11, 2014 elcidharth · Opinion » Comment. October 10, 2014. Updated: October 11, 2014 01:32 IST … Pandit Nehru’s contribution to the freedom struggle under the … Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently made a statement asking … from November 14, the birth anniversary of Pandit Nehru to Indira …
  • Happy 125th Birthday Jawaharlal Nehru | So Sue me
    2 days ago – November 12, 2014 elcidharth Leave a comment … …. event being organised by Modi Government on November 14 at Teen Murti Library, the …
  • Bypoll: Slap on Modi’s Birthday | So Sue me
    Sep 16, 2014 – September 14, 2014 elcidharth Leave a comment … not to … READ ALSO: FIR registered against Yogi Adityanath for Noida hate speech …… by India First Foundation in New Delhi on November 24. “Media ….. As a true statesmen, Dr Swamy was quoting India First Prime Minister Nehru’s speech in …

Sort By:
Sudhir 23685
SECULAR INDIA — 1) Congress Ex-PM organizing roza iftar at his official residence NOT a polarisation bid?? 2) UP Govt withdrawing terror charges from the accused of bomb blasts NOT a polarisation bid?? 3) Construction of 5 star hajj houses in every state, crores in subsidy at govt expense NOT a polarisation bid?? 4) Branding Batla encounter, ishrat encounter FAKE NOT a polarisation bid?? 5) Allowing crores of illegal Bangladeshis to come & settle in country, providing them ration card, driving licence, aadhar card etc & then milking their Votes NOT a polarisation bid?? 6) PM of India proclaiming that Muslims have first share in India’s resources NOT a polarisation bid??? CM of Karnataka’s very first order after taking oath that Cow slaughter is now legal in Karnataka NOT a polarisation bid ??? Indian media showing with all remorse the plight of Muslims in Burma, but ignoring completely the daily conversions, killings of minority Hindus in Pakistan & Bangladesh NOT a polarisation bid???? etc etc etc ………………
0 0 Reply Flag
Sid Harth
Further Reading A useful collection of Nehru’s speeches and writings is Nehru: The First Sixty Years, selected and edited by Dorothy Norman (2 vols., 1965). Major biographies are Frank Moraes, Jawaharlal Nehru (1956); Donald E. Smith, Nehru and Democracy: The Political Thought of an Asian Democrat (1958); Michael Brecher, Nehru: A Political Biography (1960); and M. N. Das, The Political Philosophy of Jawaharlal Nehru (1961). A journalistic account, written by an intimate of the Nehru household, is Marie Seton, Panditiji: A Portrait of Jawaharlal Nehru (1967), a valuable book for students of Indian politics and history. A somewhat simplified biography, particularly suitable for young adults and casual readers, is Bani Shorter, Nehru: A Voice for Mankind (1970). Works that assess Nehru’s achievements and evaluate his place in history include K. Natwar-Singh, ed., The Legacy of Nehru: A Memorial Tribute (1965); The Emerging World: Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Volume (1965); and G. S. Jolly, ed., The Image of Nehru (1969), all of which are laudatory and should be balanced by more critical appraisals, such as that in Brecher’s biography. Walter Crocker, an intimate friend, yet sometimes a critic, of Nehru, wrote Nehru: A Contemporary’s Estimate (1966), which is a more balanced appraisal. Paul F. Power and Columbia University Committee on Oriental Studies, eds., India’s Nonalignment Policy (1967), deals with various Indian and foreign views of Nehru’s foreign policy and contains a good bibliography on the subject. Another work by Michael Brecher, Nehru’s Mantle: The Politics of Succession in India (1966), analyzes the parliamentary system in India that made possible a peaceful succession. □
Sid Harth
Free India’s first elections in 1951-1952 resulted in an overwhelming Congress victory. Economic planning and welfare were the first claims on Nehru’s attention. He inaugurated a diluted version of socialist planning: concentration of public investment in areas of the economy that were free from private interests. The Planning Commission was created in 1950 and launched the First Five-Year Plan in 1951, stressing an increase in agricultural output. Nehru also took pride in the Community Development Program, established to raise the standard of living in the villages. He saw the Third Five-Year Plan operative before his death on May 27, 1964, in New Delhi. Nehru was the architect of nonalignment in foreign policy. Economic weakness and the Indian tradition were powerful factors in formulating the policy. The other influence on Nehru’s foreign policy was his controversial minister of defense, Krishna Menon. Nehru sought closer relations with nonaligned Asian states, with India in the role of leader. Nehru’s nonalignment policy was criticized by many Westerners and some Indians as giving preference to totalitarian countries rather than to democracies. Some critics believed that nonalignment left India no effective means to deal with China, national defense, the Great Powers, or the underdeveloped community. On the other hand, nonalignment had many Indian defenders, even in the face of the Chinese invasion of Indian border territory in 1962. Some held that nonalignment was a strategy for deterrence and peace, a force for protecting Indian independence and preservation of the international community on ethical grounds. Nevertheless, nonalignment as implemented by Nehru did not prevent the government from resorting to force in Hyderabad, Kashmir, and Goa.
Sid Harth
War in Europe drew India in, together with England. For Indian leaders the question was how an honorable settlement could be reached with England and still allow India to participate on the Allied side. Negotiations toward this end culminated in the Cripps mission and offer of dominion status in March 1942. Nehru refused to accept dominion status, as did the rest of Congress leadership. There followed the Congress “Quit India” resolution and the imprisonment of Nehru, Gandhi, and other Congress leaders until June 1945. There were nationwide protests, a mass demand for independence. Prime Minister In 1945, as Congress president, Nehru was pressed into negotiations with the Moslem League and the viceroy. Congress-Moslem League negotiations were marked by communal killings in Calcutta, followed by sympathetic outbreaks throughout India. Final decisions were reached in conversations between the last British viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, and Nehru, Gandhi, and Mohammad Ali Jinnah. According to the Mountbatten Plan, two separate dominions were created. Nehru became prime minister and minister of external affairs of independent India in 1947. Following Gandhi’s assassination in January 1948, Nehru felt very much alone facing economic problems and the possibility of the Balkanization of India. In 1949 he made his first visit to the United States in search of a solution to India’s pressing food shortage.
Sid Harth
Back in India Nehru was immediately engrossed in party conferences and was elected president of the All-India Trades Union Congress. In speeches he linked the goals of independence and socialism. In 1928 he joined the radical opposition to proposals for dominion status by his father and Gandhi. In 1930 Gandhi threw his weight to Nehru as Congress president, attempting to divert radicalism from communism to the Congress. In 1930 Nehru was arrested and imprisoned for violation of the Salt Law, which Gandhi also protested in his famous “salt march.” Nehru’s wife was also arrested. From the end of 1931 to September 1935 Nehru was free only 6 months. During the 1937 elections the Moslem League offered to cooperate with the All-India Congress Committee in forming a coalition government in the United Provinces. Nehru refused, and the struggle between the Congress and the Moslem League was under way. Nehru also established the precedent for economic planning in a suggestion that the Congress form a national planning committee. In 1938 Nehru paid a brief visit to Europe. On his return he was sent briefly as envoy to China until war intervened and made it necessary for him to return.
Sid Harth
In 1921 Nehru followed Gandhi in sympathy with the Khilafat cause of the Moslems. Nehru was drawn into the first civil disobedience campaign as general secretary of the United Provinces Congress Committee. Nehru remarked, “I took to the crowd, and the crowd took to me, and yet I never lost myself in it.” Nehru here articulated two of his most distinctive traits throughout his career: his involvement with the people and his aloof and lonely detachment. The year 1921 also witnessed the first of Nehru’s many imprisonments. In prison his political philosophy matured, and he said that he learned patience and adaptability. Imprisonment was also a criterion of political success. International Influences In 1926-1927 Nehru took his wife to Europe for her health. This experience became a turning point for Nehru. It was an intellectual sojourn, highlighted by an antiimperialist conference in Brussels. Here Nehru first encountered Communists, Socialists, and radical nationalists from Asia and Africa. The goals of independence and social reform became firmly linked in Nehru’s mind. Nehru spoke eloquently against imperialism and became convinced of the need for a socialist structure of society. He was impressed with the Soviet example during a visit to Moscow.
Sid Harth
Early Political Moves Back in India, Nehru began to practice law with his father. It was not until 1917 that Nehru was stirred by a political issue, the imprisonment of Annie Besant, an Irish theosophist devoted to Indian freedom. As a result, Nehru became active in the Home Rule League. His involvement in the nationalist movement gradually replaced his legal practice. In 1916 Nehru was married to Kamala Kaul, of an orthodox Kashmiri Brahmin family. They had one daughter (later Indira Gandhi, third prime minister of independent India). Apart from his father and Besant, the greatest influence on Nehru politically was Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhi had been educated much like Nehru but, unlike him, remained basically untouched, essentially Indian. A second issue which fired Nehru’s nationalism and led him to join Gandhi was the Amritsar massacre of 1919, in which some 400 Indians were shot on orders of a British officer. The year 1920 marked Nehru’s first contact with the Indian kisan, the peasant majority. Nehru was “filled with shame and sorrow … at the degradation and overwhelming poverty of India.” This experience aroused a sympathy for the underdog which characterized many of Nehru’s later political moves. The plight of the peasant was a challenge to his socialist convictions, and he attempted to persuade the peasants to organize. From this time on Nehru’s concerns were Indian. He began to read the Bhagavad Gita and practiced vegetarianism briefly. Most of his life he practiced yoga daily.
Sid Harth
Jawaharlal Nehru Encyclopedia of World Biography | 2004 | Copyright Jawaharlal Nehru Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964) was a great Indian nationalist leader who worked for independence and social reform. He became first prime minister of independent India, a position he retained until his death. He initiated India’s nonalignment policy in foreign affairs. Jawaharlal Nehru was born on Nov. 14, 1889, in Allahabad into a proud, learned Kashmiri Brahmin family. His father, Motilal Nehru, was a wealthy barrister and influential politician. Jawaharlal was an only child until the age of 11, after which two sisters were born. The atmosphere in the Nehru home was more English than Indian; English was spoken. It was also a luxurious home, with an impressive stable and two swimming pools. Jawaharlal was educated at home by tutors, most of them English or Scottish. Under the influence of a tutor Nehru joined the Theosophical Society at 13. At the age of 15 Nehru left for England, where he studied at Harrow and Cambridge and then for the bar in London. He was called to the bar in 1912. His English experience reinforced his elegant and cosmopolitan tastes. As Nehru said of himself at Cambridge, “In my likes and dislikes I was perhaps more an Englishman than an Indian.” In London he was attracted by Fabian ideas; nationalism and socialism from this time on provided his intellectual motive force.
Sid Harth
(3) Organised attempts should be made to introduce substitute foods and to encourage a balanced diet, even though this involves change in the pattern of food consumption. It has often been stated that the present food habits in the country are not conducive to health, and recognized authorities in medicine and nutrition are of opinion that even from this point of view there should be a change in favour of a more balanced diet. Production and consumption of vegetables should be increased. (4) More fish should be produced and consumed by those who have no objection to such diet. (5) Production of short-term crops should be taken up systematically and immediately. This will depend on the area as to what crops can be grown there. In some places, maize or some of the coarser grains can be cultivated. Potatoes and bananas should be encouraged. For these short -term crops, Kutcha wells should be sunk to supply water. Wherever this is feasible. Kutcha water channels can also me made. (6) Every available small piece of lad should be used for growing some foodstuff. More particularly, this should be done near villages. It is possible to make even usar or saline land cultivable with a little treatment. (7) Relief work hold be specially related to agricultural production. Small schemes should be encouraged and village panchayats should be put in charge of these schemes. The community development blocks should particularly interest themselves in these small schemes. Doles must be avoided except in the case of the infirm. Every attempt should be made to fill the deficit by short term production. It should be realized that the present crisis can only be met by the fullest coordination between official and non official agencies. Targets should be set for the short-term as well as long-term production , and each village, and wherever possible, each family should be set a target. It has sometimes been said that the agricultural departments of state governments are considered not too important. This is obviously not right. They have to deal with the most important sector of our economy. They should therefore, be activised and take up their work as one of top priority and extreme national urgency. I have repeated here some of the suggestions that have been made. No doubt, others will suggest themselves to you. The point is that all of us should realise the vital necessity of attaching this food position from all fronts and not wait for some miracles to happen from the Centre or from overseas. Our attention must be diverted more and more to self help (Letter by Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India to State Chief Ministers. 20/11/1957)
Sid Harth
Nehru on Food Shortage ..We have been repeating almost ad nausea that agricultural production, and especially production of cereals, is the very basis and foundation of our plans and of our progress….The recent drought has made this matter of extreme importance. But, then, can we treat this matter so lightly and change our opinions and estimates within a few months? ..I have drawn your attention to Working Committee resolution which you must have seen. In this, both the short-term and the long-term aspects have been considered. In the long-term aspect, attention is drawn to the progressive spread of what might be called desert conditions in some parts of the country. ..In fact , while we talk about planting trees and Van Mahotsava, actually we treat this rather causally and as some kind of an annual event. Our forests disappear , leading to disastrous results. We must have an extensive and clearly defined plan of afforestation on a large scale…A great deal can be done by small schemes or in a small way. Everything now is made to depend on large sums o money as grants from somewhere. The local area asks for a grant from the State Government ; the State Government looks for credits or grants from other countries. This is not the right approach, and if we depend on everybody but ourselves, we shall sink more and more in this morass. For the short-term, it is essential that: (1) All waste of foodstuffs must be avoided. Restaurants, hotels and like institutions must be asked to avoid waste, more particularly in regard to food grains. We must give up feasts and banquets. We must limit people invited to functions where meals are served. In fact, we should do all this on an austerity scale. (2) The consumption of rice should be limited everywhere, and , to some extent, replaced by wheat or other grains. In the wheat-eating areas, more particularly, rice should be strictly limited, so that it may be available to other parts of India. It should be remembered that it is very difficult to get rice from abroad. There is scarcity of it the world over. We hope to get some from Burma, but that will not be much. Wheat, at least, we can get, though every import is a heavy burden on us.
Sid Harth
Nehru on Indian Press The Press if it wants freedom – which is ought to have must have some balance of mind which is seldom possesses. One cannot have it both ways. Evert freedom in this world is limited, limited not so much by law as by circumstances. We do not wish to come in the way of freedom of the Press. Personally, I am convinced of the freedom of the Press (Speech in Parliament. 29/5/1951) The press is one of the vital organs of modern life, especially in a democracy. The Press has tremendous powers and responsibilities. The Press must be respected and it must also have co-operation. (Speech in Parliament. 16/5/1951) To my mind, the freedom of the Press is not just a slogan from the larger point of view but it is an essential attribute of the democratic process. I have no doubt that even if the government dislikes the liberties taken by the press and considers them dangerous, it is wrong to interfere with the freedom of the Press. By imposing restrictions you do not change anything; you merely suppress the public manifestation of certain things, thereby causing the idea and thought underlying them to spread further. Therefore, I would rather have a completely free Press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated Press. (Speech at the Newspaper Editor’s Conference. 3/12/1950) Whatever we may think of the virtues and failings of the Press it is obvious that it plays a very important part in our lives; it moulds people’s minds and thoughts and this affects the policies of the government, if not always directly. Therefore, when we have to deal with any major problem, it is important that the Press should- if I say so with all humility- give it right lead…. (Address at the newspapers Editor’s Conference. 4/5/1950) We have been extraordinarily lenient towards the Press, Indian and foreign. We have gone out of our way to tell them that we will not do anything even if they send message which are extremely disagreeable to us. (Speech in Constituent Assembly. 8/3/48)
Sid Harth
Bantaism By Bhai Niranjan Singh Amrikawale
Sid Harth
6 Harish Kapur, India’s Foreign Policy, 1947-92: Shadows and Substance (New Delhi, 1994), p.180. 7 M. O. Mathai, Reminiscences of the Nehru Age (New Delhi, 1978), p.76. 8 Indian Foreign Affairs , vol.1, no.2, April 1958, p.30. 9 India, Lok Sabha, Debates , vol. I, part II, 25 March 1957, cols. 722-3. 10 The Hindu (Madras), 2 February 1957. 11 Nalini Kant Jha, “Cultural and Philosophical Roots of India’s Foreign Policy,” International Studies (New Delhi), vol. 26, no. 1 January-March 1989, pp.45-66. 12 Appadorai, n.5, pp. 229-30. 13 Kuldip Nayar, India: The Critical Years (New Delhi, 1971).
Sid Harth
This forced Nehru to admit his mistake in Parliament and later on embark on themodernization of India’s defence forces. It is a different matter that he could not surviveto continue with this new pragmatic approach to foreign and security policies.If one were to assess the impact of Nehru’s personality on three aspects of India’sforeign policy, namely, routine, broad framework and crisis situations, it could be arguedthat though on routine and evolving the broad framework, Nehru exercised a decisivecontrol, crisis situations were not under his complete control. He was held accountableand he had to introduce changes on these matters under public pressure manifestedthrough Parliamentary debate, press and attitude of the opposition parties, etc. 1 For a theoretical overview of foreign policy making, see Nalini Kant Jha, Domestic Imperatives in India’s Foreign Policy (New Delhi, 2002), chapter-I. 2 Joseph Frankel, The Making of Foreign Policy: An Analysis of Decision Making (London, 1963), p.15 3 Michael Clarke and Brian While, eds., Understanding Foreign Policy: The Foreign Policy Systems Approach (Aldershot, 1989), pp. 138, 141. See also, Richard W. Cottam, Foreign Policy Motivations: AGeneral Theory and a Case Study (Pittsburgh, 1977). 4 Jha, n. 1, pp. 58. 5 A. Appadorai, Domestic Roots of India’s Foreign Policy (New Delhi, 1981), p.226.
Sid Harth
Purna Swaraj or complete independence; the commonwealth did not take away an iota of Indian independence.Rather, it would be to India’s advantage to continue her association with a group of nations to further certain causes, peace for instance, in which India was interested.
Sid Harth
Another related basic idea to which Nehru was committed—and which he propagated with enthusiasm—was
Sid Harth
acquired any degree of authority or power to become a policy making body. Its memberswere ‘only gatherers and conveyors and, in short, mechanics men. 7 Nehru had thus more or less complete hold over foreign policy, which was never replicated under any other Prime Minister. N G Ranga, the leader of the Swatantra Party,was correct when he wrote in Indian Foreign Affairs in April 1958, “India is today in thefortunate position that there is almost complete unity among all her political parities over her foreign policy. 8 Even one of the best informed critics of India’s foreign policy at thattime, and a respected statesman—Acharya Kripalani—began his criticism of foreign policy in Parliament by avowing his ‘complete agreement with the basic principles of our foreign policy’, 9 peace, anti-colonialism and non-alignment with power blocs.There were, of course, differences in the approach of political parities to variousaspects of foreign policy. The Praja Socialist Party, for instance, as Nehru said on 31January 1957, 10 liked India to align herself more with the Western bloc, while theCommunist Party wished to do so with the Soviet bloc. But there was no doubt that onthe fundamental of foreign policy Pt Nehru was able to build up a broad nationalconsensus.IIIDeveloping a broad national consensus on foreign policy apart, the impact of Nehru’s personality on India’s foreign policy can be seen three aspects of its foreign policy duringits formative phase, namely, non-alignment, panchsheel , and the continuance of India’sconnection with the Commonwealth. For a start, while tailoring India’s policy of non-alignment, Nehru was undoubtedly influenced by a variety of factors such the politics of the Cold War and India’s domestic milieu, but it was his vision and perception that Indiacould follow a policy that was dictated by these imperatives. It was, for instance, whoclearly understood the logic of military alliance that could only erode the hard ownedindependence of newly liberated post-colonial states. It was he, who articulated withclarity that non-alignment was neutrality; it was not a negative policy, but a positive one;and that it would contribute to peace in so far as the area of peace built up the non-aligned countries would speak the language of peace, no of war. He also communicatedthe rational of this people in keeping with the Indian tradition of tolerance. 11
Sid Harth
In order to have a better understanding of India’s foreign policy, it is thereforenecessary to closely examine the role of the personality factor in this regard. As Pt.Jawaharlal Nehru was the sole architect of India’s foreign policy during its formative phase, the present paper therefore proposes to briefly discuss his role in this regard.IISurely, it was Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, who defined the broad framework of India’s foreign policy. While Nehru’s leadership influenced both domestic as well as foreign policies, hiscontribution to foreign policy was more significant. For, in the internal field, he built primarily on an existing framework; in the external arena, he had to lay the veryfoundations of the foreign policy edifice. In the domestic sphere, for example, there was aCivil Service and the rule of law had been established before Nehru. The beginning of theIndian democracy could be traced to the Morley-Minto Reforms. Large-scale industryand modern transport had been developing in India since the middle of the nineteenthcentury. Nehru, of course, did much to reorganize the Civil Service, re-draw theadministrative map of India, extend democracy, and to plan economic development; butthe base was already there. On the contrary, the basic elements of foreign policy had to beformulated. This exercise included: building up official contacts with sovereign Statesand with the international community organized in the United Nations; crating a foreignservice and framing a foreign policy. 5 It was really a tribute to Nehru’s personality at lest partially that nobody, belonging to the mainstream of India politics really challenged it, excepting of course ona few occasions. Although the Indian Cabinet was composed of powerful personalities, itleft foreign policy making to Nehru. Parliament trusted Nehru and it hardly showed anyinterest in foreign affairs, the external intelligence services were almost non-existent andthe media was generally euphoric about the principles that underpinned India’s policies.His own party, the Congress Party, virtually dominated the political scene with nobodyreally to challenge it. Even the Secretariat, established to assist Nehru, was basically a co-ordinating agency, which was classified as his personal Secretariat. 6 It never really
Sid Harth
Nalini Kant Jha , “Nehru and Modern India: Impact of His Personality on ForeignPolicy,” in T A. Nizami, ed., Jawaharlal Nehru and Modern India (Aligarh: Three WayPrinters, 2003), pp. 17-22. Nehru and Modern India: Impact of His Personality onForeign Policy Foreign policy of a country is, of course, determined by a large number of factors and noleader, however influential he or she may be is free in shaping foreign policy according tois whims and fancies. His freedom in this regard is restrained by both the realities of domestic as well as international politics. 1 India’s first Prime Minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, himself was candid enough to admit this fact on several occasions. Theseconstraints notwithstanding, personality of leaders, however, plays a significant role inthe shaping of any country’s foreign policy, as it is their vision and perception of theobjective realties that ultimately matters in the making of foreign policy. Not surprisingly, the personality factor is being increasingly recognized as acrucial element in foreign policy making, perhaps even more crucial than some of theestablished institutions. Scholars like Joseph Frankel have viewed the personality factor as ‘a legitimate and important topic of historical analysis’ in all investigations pertainingto external State behaviour.” 2 More recent studies have gone even further by evoking a panoply of psychological approaches to understand the ‘decision makers’ cognitivesystem;’ how it is formed and modified and how it operates ‘so as to structure perceptions and thereby determine behaviour.’ 3 The role of personality in the making of foreign policies of developing countrieslike India is even more decisive, where institutions are less institutionalised as comparedto well advanced countries In the case of India, for instance, the role of press,intelligentsia, and Parliament, etc., is normally not overwhelming on foreign policydecision makers. Besides, in a religious and a highly hierarchical society, where all thosewho have risen to political heights, are unquestioned by those who are close to them or are generally revered by those who are not, despite considerable erosion in their image.And the lack of interest in and knowledge of foreign affairs among the vast majority of Indians also prohibit them from providing any meaningful input in foreign policy makingexcept perhaps during the crisis periods. 4
Sid Harth
Self-respect Famine prevailed in Chi. Chien Ou prepared food by the roadside and waited to feed the starving refugees. A starving man came shuffling along with a mournful countenance covered by his sleeve. Chien Ou, holding forth food in his left hand and drink in his right, called out off-handedly. “Hey, there, come and eat.” The man raised his head to look at Chien Ou and said, “The reason I have come down to such straitened circumstances is that I don’t accept food offered with a ‘Hey’.” Chien Ou apologized but the man left and died of hunger. When Tseng Tze heard of this, he said. “Although the shout was uncalled for the man should have eaten after the apology.” Book of Rites. Chapter Tan Kung
Sid Harth
“After quoting Mr. Robertson’s remark that ‘reneutralization’ and ‘new Yalu sanctuary’ were ‘catch phrases’ for which there was no basis, the paper declared: “The complete disavowals of any intent of the U.S. to hold its military and economic aid programs over Chiang Kai-shek as a club to force the· Nationalists to abide by our wishes is a clear answer to those in this country who were seeking to make political capital, and at the same time a warning to Communist China that the U. S. recognizes that the Nationalists have a right, and a duty, to reduce the effectiveness of the Reds to whatever extent they are able.” “Meanwhile,” commented editorialIy the New York Daily Mirror on October 20, “we ought to know what our policy toward Chiang Kai-shek and Formosa really is. “Does Chiang Kai-shek know? One day, we are told that he has been influenced to discontinue his raids on the China coast; then we are told that he has not been so influenced. Is he to do nothing while Peking plans to capture him? If he has to twist and turn with every change of American policy, he must be as confused as the American people are. Surely by now the American policy in the East of Asia is sufficiently fixed to include opposition to the Nehru-Mao axis and full support for Chiang Kai-shek and for constant raids on the China mainland. If that is not American policy, what is American policy?”
Sid Harth
“Loss of the coastal islands also would deprive the Nationalists of their springboard for possible invasion of the mainland. All in all, it would be a terrific blow that might easily lead to the breaching of the Pacific defense line through loss of Formosa. It would be a major administration error if the Nationalists have been compelled to regard the coastal areas opposite their islands as a ‘privileged sanctuary’ for the Red forces as General MacArthur had to treat Manchuria. That Truman error prevented our winning the Korean war. Another such error could de equaIIy disastrous as regards Formosa.” “President Chiang left no doubt whatever that any decisions calling for the Nationalists to halt their blows at Red China for the time being,” observed editorially the Oakland Tribune on October 19, “were decisions made by the Nationalists alone. The events at Quemoy, both the retaliation against Red artillery and the order to call a halt were entirely dictated by practical military matters and have not been influenced by any of her consideration.”
Sid Harth
“These island groups can hardly be said to be stepping stones to the reconquest of the mainland,” argued editorially the New York Times on November 7. “Their value is essentially defensive rather than offensive in character. They do constitute a part of the network of information a d warning that screens Formosa. It is for this reason that the Nationalists have made spirited reply to each attack on them. While the New York Daily News raised the question in its editorial of October 14 “What Cooks on Formosa?” the Houston Chronicle editorialized on October 17: “There is a suspicious odor of appeasement about Assistant Secretary of State Walter S. Robertson’s hush-hush mission to Formosa.” “If the Nationalists have been, induced to agree not to bomb shore installations opposite the islands they hold near the coast and not to attack fleets of junks and motor vessels massing anywhere in the area,” the paper continued, “a major victory for the Red defeat for the Nationalists is shaping up. If the defenders of Quemoy, for example, have to wait ‘until they see the whites of their eyes’ before firing on invasion fleets, Quemoy is doomed along with its 30,000 de­ fenders. If Quemoy and other islands off the coast are lost, the Nationalists will lose their ‘windows’ on the continent through which they obtain invaluable information and maintain con­ tact with guerrilla forces in China. Also, Red invasion of Formosa itself then would become a possibility. A fleet of junks leaving the coast under cover of fog some afternoon could reach Formosa before dawn. The 7th Fleet’s patrol of the Formosa Strait is not so thorough as to rule out the possibility of complete surprise.
Sid Harth
(2) Courage on the Quemoys In its editorial of October 22, the New York Herald Tribune stated that “to the world at large, the Nationalist-held islands off the coast of China are possible stepping stones for the invasion of Formosa or the liberation of the Chi­nese mainland. They have the kind of grim featurelessness of any strategic point on a war map. In the report of Mr. Homer Bigart in yesterday’s issue of this newspaper, however, Quemoy and Little Quemoy assume a different aspect. They are the sites of homes and farms of thousands of Chinese, who cling to them courageously under all the shelling-indifferent, possibly, to the broader issues, but determined to hold to the land they have tilled, to the ruins of the houses in which they have lived.” Casting doubt on the ability of the Chinese Communists to take the islands at this time, without massive and risky air operations, the paper went on to say: “Whether they have a serious military purpose or are simply firing and shouting for propaganda effect, they have sent random death and destruction to their own countrymen, to farmers in the fields and mothers in the homes. Yet the survivors refuse to abandon, the soil of the islands, undeterred by shelling, unmoved by propaganda. On the small but vital stage of the Quemoys, under Red guns, there is a striking example of the enduring strength and staunchness of the Chinese people, a demonstration of genuine human values that will surely be sustained in China despite all the efforts of the Communists to pervert and destroy them.”
Sid Harth
With reference to Nehru’s statement that he “came out 100 per cent in favor of (peaceful) coexistence, no matter what,” the New York World-Telegram editorialized on October 29, “That ‘no matter what’ is interesting because when Red China decided to coexist peacefully inside Tibet a few years ago, Nehru got quite jittery about it. Evidently it mattered then, for Tibet’s occupation by an aggressor power had obvious military and political implications. It meant not only Red conquest, but bringing large Red Chinese military forces to the very borders of India, as well as the rich state of Kashmir, which India covets.” “Well, suppose some time in the future­ depending on the Communist timetable,” the paper continued, “Red China decides to ‘peacefully coexist’ inside Kashmir, or even India. Will Nehru be 100 per cent in favor of that? He’s bound to be, as he says-no matter what.” While The Economist observed on October 23: “The real question, therefore, is whether the results of Nehru’s journey to (Communist) China will have any special significance at all, and whether they will do more good than harm or more harm than good,” the Glasgow Herald commented editorially on October 27: “Official good will has no doubt been increased between the two countries, even if it is of the suspiciously temporary nature that might be expected from the lying down together of a lamb and a lion in lamb’s clothing. Beyond the possibility of a reciprocal agreement about civil airlines, nothing concrete has emerged. But there has been much reiteration on both sides of the importance of the Tibet agreement’s preamble advocating peaceful co-existence. Like all such declarations between Communist and non-Communist countries, this agreement had a limited and superficial virtue; but while non-interference in each other’s internal affairs was agreed, no mention was made of the fact that India has a Communist Party but (Communists China has no Congress party, that Chinese Communism (like all Communism) has a proselytising mission backed by force, while Indian democracy is a tender and almost rootless plant surrounded by a little chicken-wire.”
Sid Harth
“If it does, then Nehru’s visit to Peiping will indeed have historic significance. It will be historic because it will signalize the first time in history that Commies ever kept a major promise they weren’t compelled to keep.” “Clearly, the Communists have organized a counter-SEATO movement,” commented editorially the New York Mirror on October 20, “the axis of which is Nehru-Mao, India and Red China. First Chou En-lai visited India; now Nehru returns the call but to Mao Tse-tung. An alliance between Red China and India, particularly a military alliance, could endanger the peace of the world.” “The biggest mistake at the SEATO conference at Manila,” the paper continued, “was the omission of Formosa, Japan and South Korea from its membership. Had these countries been present, there could be no mistaking its character. They were omitted to please Great Britain, which believes that it can differentiate between Chinese Marxism and Russian Marxism and which still lives in the hope that somehow, by some means, some day, Red China will be separated from Red Russia and will fall into the lap of the Western powers.”
Sid Harth
Stating that Chou En-lai’s visit to India and Burma when he was on his way home from Geneva added materially to the Communist prestige in the Far East, the paper went on to say; “There should also be no doubt that Pei­ping is eager to entertain Prime Minister Nehru because of the confidence that this prestige will be still further enhanced. Mr. Nehru is not worried about enhancing the prestige of Mao and Chou. We happen to be, and for that reason we can deplore his trip. He will definitely be giving ‘aid and comfort’ to the Chinese Communists, whom we regard as enemies of freedom.” Declaring that the public statements made by Nehru and Mao “made it seem a good guess that they are cooking up some sort of non-aggression pact between India and Red China,” the New York Daily News editorialized on October 22: “Suppose they do; and suppose the treaty carries a Chinese Communist promise not to give any more help to the Hindu Reds who are trying to undermine Nehru’s government. Soviet Russia made such a promise to the United States in 1933, when President F. D. Roosevelt recognized Stalin, thereby probably saving the Red Czar’s gangster government from collapse. Russia went gaily ahead with its effort to foment Red revolution here, and is still at it. If Communist China makes a similar promise to India, will Mao Tse-tung’s and Chou En-lai’s Red government in Peiping live up to that promise?
Sid Harth
“It would be unfair to characterise this trip as just another ‘pilgrimage to Peiping,’ editorialized the” New York Times along the same line on the same day, “and to compare it with the recent journeys of Clement AttIee and the chief Soviet dignitaries who were the recipients of the Communist hospitality. Mr. Nehru is doing no obeisance and asking no favors. Indeed, it is clearly suggested that one of the major purposes of his trip is to ask some sharp questions in Peiping such as, for example, what Red China will do or stop doing about Communists in Burma and what Red China will do or stop doing about the Overseas Chinese. If Mr. Nehru can get unequivocal answers to such questions he will have helped to clear the international atmosphere. “The net result, however, can be unhappy. India’s influence, for example, is thrown against the Southeast Asia Defense Pact because this constitutes such an ‘alignment,’ Indonesia is influenced, in turn, by Indian leadership, and. one of the most vulnerable spots in East Asia is made even weaker in the face of Communist infiltration and subversion. One of the Moslem groups in Indonesia has now taken a firm stand against the Government and expressed its sup­port of the idea of the Manila Pact, but unless there is a more general expression of popular opinion Indonesia will continue to be a prime Communist target and present the possibility of a relatively easy prey.”
Sid Harth
“India and China are essentially rivals, for prestige and leadership in Asia. Chou En-lai raised his own and (Communist) China’s prestige by his visit to India and Burma following the Geneva Conference; it is not surprising to see Mr. Nehru attempting the same thing. Nehru needs peace to carry out his own ambitious program for improving the Indian standard of living as well as to lead a neutralist bloc in Asia. For this reason he is conciliatory toward his big northern neighbor. But presumably he also is well aware that his own plans will be frustrated if Communist China pushes further into Tibet and Nepal or worries the other countries of South Asia. Hence he is concerned with giving practical meaning to the Communist theme of coexistence.” “It would be unwise and unjust at this stage,” concluded the paper, “to brand his journey to (Communist) China as appeasement. Rather it may be considered in the nature of a fact-finding expedition. One of the questions on which he may be able to throw some light is just what the new Russian concessions mean in terms of a tighter Sino-Soviet rela­tionship-a question on which countries with no contact at Peking can only guess.”
Sid Harth
Pointing out that Nehru’s visit to Peiping was “hardly the sort of thing that tends to reassure,” the paper concluded: “From the stand­ point of population, India and Red China are the two biggest countries in the world, and although the Peiping get-together probably will fall very far short of being the most important event of the decade, it can have significant and possibly quite adverse results for the West­ particularly if Mr. Nehru is in a mood to promote ‘peaceful co-existence’ at almost any price, on the basis of mere propaganda promises from the Communists.” “Some critics of India’s neutral course doubt­ less will see in Prime Minister Nehru’s visit to Peking,” observed editorially the Washington Post and Times-Herald the next day, “a closer alignment with the Chinese Communists. Our guess is that the purpose of his trip is something quite different. For all his skepticism about American policy and his misconception of capitalist economics, Mr. Nehru is by no means indifferent to the dangers of Communist expansionism. We suspect that he will ask some searching questions about Chinese intentions in the areas bordering India, the support of subversive movements in Southeast Asia and the direction of the overseas Chinese in Burma, Thailand and Indonesia.
Sid Harth
“All this, coupled with some other things that Mr. Nehru has said and done in recent years, justifies a certain feeling of misgiving about the nature and possible effects of his trip to Peiping. True, besides preaching the doctrine of ‘Asia for the Asians,’ he has long professed to be a kind of tight-rope walker or fence-sitter unwaveringly intent upon having India follow a policy of strict neutrality between the Sino-Soviet empire on the one hand and the United States and the West as a whole on the other. But unfortunately, especially since the outbreak of the Korean war in 1950, he has several times given the impression of leaning markedly toward the Communists and being rather too self-righteous and free-wheeling-not to mention inaccurate and confused-in his criticism of our country and its allies.”
Sid Harth
Congress Calls PM Modi ‘Pied Piper’, Attacks Minister Accused of Forging Marksheets All India | Press Trust of India | Updated: November 14, 2014 17:30 IST Congress Calls PM Modi ‘Pied Piper’, Attacks Minister Accused of Forging Marksheets Junior education minister RS Katheria New Delhi: Congress today attacked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ministerial colleagues, after the controversy surrounding newly-inducted minister of state for HRD Ram Shankar Katheria over his graduation marksheet. Party general secretary Digvijaya Singh called Mr Modi as “Indian pied piper” who “takes credit of all the things which he hasn’t done”. Ajay Maken, who heads the Congress’ communications department, said in his tweet, “BJP-Gift to the Nation Education Min filed wrong Affidavit: MOS allegedly forged MarkSheet! Modi’s #Clean Politics ? (sic)”. While attacking Mr Katheria, both the leaders also referred to the degree controversy surrounding Human Resource Development (HRD) Minister Smriti Irani sometime back. “First Minster HRD and now MOS HRD has given Fraud Mark Sheet! On top of it RSS wants to change the Text Books and Indian History (sic),” Mr Singh said on Twitter. Mr Katheria, the Junior Education Minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, faces charges of forging two university marksheets to land a teaching job at Agra University. The minister has, however, strongly denied the charge against him terming it a political conspiracy. Digvijaya Singh also slammed the BJP for “taking support of MIM” in Maharashtra and claimed the saffron party will benefit if MIM contests elections in Delhi. He said that “religious fundamentalists of majority and minority” are two faces of the same coin. Two MLAs of Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) had abstained from voting against the Devendra Fadnavis government of BJP in Maharashtra. He added “Bhakra Nangal other Dams Power Projects Navratna PSUs IITs IIMs are products of his Vision. Through Land Reforms he gave Land to the Tiller.” Story First Published: November 14, 2014 16:37 IST
Sid Harth
Marksheet Case: Minister RS Katheria Charged with Faking Work Experience Too All India | Kashish | Updated: November 14, 2014 21:21 IST Professor RS Katheria’s allegedly original and allegedly false marksheets from Bachelor of Arts second year New Delhi: A chargesheet against new junior education minister RS Katheria alleges not just that he forged two university marksheets to land a teaching job at Agra University, but also a work experience document. Less than 20 days after Prof Katheria, a two-term BJP lawmaker, was sworn in as a central minister on Sunday, an Agra court in Uttar Pradesh will hear the forgery case against him. The minster said today, “If the charges are proven, I will not just resign as minister but also as a parliamentarian.” He is charged with falsely claiming to have had work experience of three years in an Etawah college, also in UP, when he applied for the post of reader in an Agra college in 1999. The state police allege that their investigations show Mr Katheria never worked at the Etawah college. Related Make in India, Make Your Own Marksheet: Congress’ Dig at Junior Education Minister Congress Calls PM Modi ‘Pied Piper’, Attacks Minister Accused of Forging Marksheets Will Quit if Charges are Proven, Says Minister RS Katheria Accused of Forging His Marksheets He is also accused of changing a mark sheet for his Bachelor of Arts programme and another for his second year in a Master of Arts programme. The minister has said that the case, filed by a rival Bahujan Samaj Party candidate who lost narrowly to him in the 2009 national elections, is a result of political vendetta. He also claimed that he had been given a clean chit in an inquiry conducted by the Uttar Pradesh government under Mayawati. In 2012, the Allahabad High Court dismissed Mr Katheria’s attempt at getting the case quashed and directed the Agra sessions court to resolve it as soon as possible. Mr Katheria has been charged with cheating and dishonesty under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. If convicted, he could get a prison term of up to seven years. Convicted politicians are disqualified from office and are barred from contesting elections for several years after a landmark Supreme Court ruling last year. This is only one of 21 cases that Mr Katheria has listed in his election affidavit. The Congress has questioned the induction of a minister with so many cases against him. Story First Published: November 14, 2014 20:50 IST
Sid Harth
Make in India, Make Your Own Marksheet: Congress’ Dig at Junior Education Minister All India | Reported by Kashish, Edited by Amit Chaturvedi | Updated: November 14, 2014 21:31 IST Make in India, Make Your Own Marksheet: Congress’ Dig at Junior Education Minister Congress leader Salman Khurshid Prof Katheria said today that, “If the charges are proven, I will not just resign as minister but also as a parliamentarian.” He has called it a political conspiracy against him. The forgery case against him was filed by a rival Bahujan Samaj Party candidate who lost narrowly to him in the 2009 national elections. He has been charged with cheating and dishonesty under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr Khurshid linked the controversy to an earlier one about the educational qualifications of Smriti Irani, the senior minister in the same ministry. “There is something called a talent pool and one picks people for a particular job, the best suited candidate is chosen. In this case, it seems those who have maximum human resources have been picked for the job,” he said in more sarcasm. Fellow Congressman Digvijay Singh tweeted, “First Minster HRD and now MOS HRD has given Fraud Mark Sheet! On top of it RSS wants to change the Text Books and Indian History”. Professor Katheria was one of 21 ministers inducted last Sunday in Mr Modi’s Cabinet expansion exercise. This is only one of the 21 cases that Mr Katheria has listed in his election affidavit. BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra said, “All these cases are nothing but political vendetta. The case had been started by the BSP government. The BSP government could not find anything in the enquiry and as a result no FIR was filed.” Story First Published: November 14, 2014 20:42 IST
Sid Harth
Reviews & endorsements “Joan Hoff is universally recognized as among our most distinguished and perceptive historians of the American presidency and US foreign policy. In A Faustian Foreign Policy from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush she has produced another perceptive, graceful and informative history that targets and explains the deadly combination that too often has led our nation astray: grand visions conceived in a myopic haze of American exceptionalism. It is a major achievement.” -Martin J. Sherwin, George Mason University; Co-author of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, 2006 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for biography “Joan Hoff has given us a superb critical analysis of post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy. But her book is most important in providing a powerful insight which has been missing from too much recent analysis: how that post-9/11 foreign policy catastrophe comes directly out of how Americans have been viewing and making their foreign policy over the past several centuries. The 17th-century American ‘City on a Hill’ exceptionalist belief (emphasized by Ronald Reagan), the religious Manifest Destiny of the 19th-century which climaxed in Civil War, and, above all, the haunting illusions of Woodrow Wilson’s export-democracy-to-the world — all, as Hoff masterfully and succinctly explains, are absolutely necessary for us to understand if we are also to understand — and correct — post-9/11 U.S. foreign policy disasters.” -Walter LaFeber, Tisch University Professor at Cornell University “With customary insight and erudition, and passion to diagnose what ills the United States at this moment in time, Joan Hoff shows how blind faith in American exceptionalism has produced a century of foreign policy that perverted, and threatens to destroy, the nation’s values. That does not have to happen. Like no book since William Appleman William’s The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, Hoff’s study powerfully demonstrates that a better future for America (and the world) lies in coming to terms with the corrupt bargains of the past. By so doing, citizens and leaders together can recover their nation’s lost honor.” -William O. Walker III, University of Toronto “In this brilliant book, Joan Hoff deftly explores how the myth of unparalleled virtue has cloaked an increasingly sordid reality of U.S. foreign policy. If more Americans shared her wisdom, they would live in a better nation and a better world.” -Lawrence S. Wittner, State University of New York, Albany; Editor of Peace Action “Hoff bases this well-written narrative on solid research and a clear moral standpoint…The American public and its leaders–not only historians–should ponder this excellent, disturbing book.” The Historian, Richard T. Fry, Illinois College
Sid Harth
Professor Joan Hoff’s A Faustian Foreign Policy: Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush critiques U.S. foreign policy during this period by showing how moralistic diplomacy has increasingly taken on Faustian overtones. As long as the ideological outcome of the Cold War remained in doubt, there was little reason for presidents or government decision makers to question the unethical aspects of U.S. relations with the rest of the world or the universal and exceptional nature of American values. September 11 allowed the United States to assert its exceptionalism and dominance more unilaterally than ever before. Controversial, critical of both Democrats and Republicans since 1920 – does not take a partisan stand Original historical synthesis Covers a number of important themes
Sid Harth
A Faustian Foreign Policy from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush Dreams of Perfectibility Author: Joan Hoff Date Published: December 2007 availability: In stock format: Paperback isbn: 9780521714044
Sid Harth
Reviews & endorsements “The International Ambitions of Mao and Nehru is the work of a gifted scholar, one knowledgeable of both Chinese and Indian foreign relations. Indeed, there are very few individuals working in the field of Asian security studies who have shown a comparable mastery of both countries. Moreover, Kennedy has broader aspirations than to simply study Chinese and Indian foreign policy, rather through his development of the concept of national efficacy beliefs he aims to speak to debates in international relations theory and security studies about fundamental aspects of international politics.” — Allen Carlson, Cornell University “Andrew Kennedy has written a terrific book that challenges the conventional wisdom about the constraints on leaders in international politics. By combining theoretical creativity with careful historical research, he demonstrates how Mao Zedong and Jawaharlal Nehru chose to pursue bold and risky strategies in their relations with other states. The result is persuasive study that advances international relations theory as well as our knowledge of Chinese and Indian foreign policy.” —M. Taylor Fravel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology “Andrew Kennedy has focused on a most unlikely comparison of the leadership styles and foreign policies of two twentieth-century Asian nationalists of extraordinary significance: Jawaharlal Nehru of India and Mao-Tse-Tung of the People’s Republic of China. Nehru was an aristocratic, Anglophilic, and erudite nationalist passionately committed to the principles of liberal democracy at home and in the world. Mao was a peasant revolutionary who ushered in a violent revolution and created a totalitarian state which presided over the deaths of millions through ill-conceived policies of social and economic transformation. Despite these obvious contrasts, both individuals sought to pursue significant foreign policy goals for their respective nations. Kennedy’s carefully researched, historically-grounded and theoretically supple work makes an important contribution to studies of both leadership and foreign policy.” — Sumit Ganguly, Indiana University, Bloomington “An insightful, well argued, and solidly documented re-interpretation of the psychology and foreign policy choices of Mao Zedong and Jawaharlal Nehru. Kennedy convincingly links the historical experience of India’s independence movement and China’s revolutionary upheaval to differing belief systems of Mao and Nehru, and then those beliefs to the foreign policy choices of the two leaders. He argues convincingly that India’s long and successful non-violent struggle for independence, and the victory of the Chinese revolution against seemingly overwhelming odds, gave rise to different beliefs about the efficacy of moral suasion and war, and that Nehru’s and Mao’s embrace of these varying world views deeply influenced those leaders management of their nation’s foreign relations. An important contribution to the study of the
Sid Harth
Description Contents Resources Courses About the Authors Why do leaders sometimes challenge, rather than accept, the international structures that surround their states? In The International Ambitions of Mao and Nehru, Andrew Kennedy answers this question through in-depth studies of Chinese foreign policy under Mao Zedong and Indian foreign policy under Jawaharlal Nehru. Drawing on international relations theory and psychological research, Kennedy offers a new theoretical explanation for bold leadership in foreign policy, one that stresses the beliefs that leaders develop about the “national efficacy” of their states. He shows how this approach illuminates several of Mao and Nehru’s most important military and diplomatic decisions, drawing on archival evidence and primary source materials from China, India, the United States, and the United Kingdom. A rare blend of theoretical innovation and historical scholarship, The International Ambitions of Mao and Nehru is a fascinating portrait of how foreign policy decisions are made. Offers a novel theoretical perspective on why political leaders sometimes act with surprising boldness in foreign policy Offers a historically rich account of Chinese foreign policy under Mao and Indian foreign policy under Nehru, drawing on newly discovered archival documents from China, India, the UK and the US The only extant book that systematically and in detail compares the foreign policies of Mao Zedong and Jawaharlal Nehru
Sid Harth
The International Ambitions of Mao and Nehru National Efficacy Beliefs and the Making of Foreign Policy Author: Andrew Kennedy Date Published: December 2011 availability: Available format: Hardback isbn: 9780521193511

...and I am Sid Harth

No comments:

Post a Comment