Dictators failing, but why the democracies...
I found this article by Thomas Friedman interesting. It is about the recent trend of overthrowing dictators and failing democracies. The last part is exceedingly good especially from the United States perspective. Please find time to read.
READ HERE
March to socialism under Indira.
Some how i feel the economist guys are very well paid for an armchair job. Else they will not comment so obnoxiously. Many feel economics is all about money making and not about profit or no humane. I do completely otherwise. what is the point of having a 20% growth, where 80% have no proper food, education, medical facilities. Only thing we then would be proud of having 499 of forbs500 billionaires are from India. This they call reforms, which means...yea give us opportunity so that we will make money (only for us is unsaid). In Indira's time, India had a larger than life image, did so much of unthinkables such as stopping the privie purse, creation of Bengladesh and much more. More than anything she has to be acknoledged as a person who integrated India. Had we left it for these economist guys I would have been writing this from the Thanashahi Republic of Hyderabad.
my view is economics is much more valuable than the typical cutthroat business and more than you egomaniac economists think...it is one of the most humane subjects which touches every human. Give the humane value to it.
Those of you feeling to read the article is HERE
I found this article by Thomas Friedman interesting. It is about the recent trend of overthrowing dictators and failing democracies. The last part is exceedingly good especially from the United States perspective. Please find time to read.
READ HERE
March to socialism under Indira.
Some how i feel the economist guys are very well paid for an armchair job. Else they will not comment so obnoxiously. Many feel economics is all about money making and not about profit or no humane. I do completely otherwise. what is the point of having a 20% growth, where 80% have no proper food, education, medical facilities. Only thing we then would be proud of having 499 of forbs500 billionaires are from India. This they call reforms, which means...yea give us opportunity so that we will make money (only for us is unsaid). In Indira's time, India had a larger than life image, did so much of unthinkables such as stopping the privie purse, creation of Bengladesh and much more. More than anything she has to be acknoledged as a person who integrated India. Had we left it for these economist guys I would have been writing this from the Thanashahi Republic of Hyderabad.
my view is economics is much more valuable than the typical cutthroat business and more than you egomaniac economists think...it is one of the most humane subjects which touches every human. Give the humane value to it.
Those of you feeling to read the article is HERE
Hi,
ReplyDeleteIts a matter of choice. Indira did more harms than the benefits. Creation of Bangladesh may be a good thing you can say, as she saved many persons from discrimination, gave them a chance to be sovereign. But then, the same thing created refugee problem in INDIA and ethnic clashes in Indian states like Assam, changing demography, influencing poll outcomes etc.
The biggest and the single most harm what Indira did was undermining the Democracy (Imposing Emergency). Being hailed as a leftist, she had a dictatorial tendency right from the younger days when her father was prime-minister. More often they had many difference of opinions. Now, at that time media was under her control naturally her larger than life image was created by the state controlled media under her regime. Its is very easy to take populist steps and remain in power without opposition. Its hard to take steps that are really necessary for the development of a nation while having an army of critics. Dr. Manmohan Singh in that respect is far better and Indira's Father was excellent.
We should also remember that "Kashmir Humara Abhinna Ang hai aur hum ise lekar rahenge" ("Kashmir is an integral part of INDIA and we will eventually take it") was a creation of none other than Indira. Totally false and on wrong steps, this created an imprint in rest of the Indians that they can not even think of steps like giving limited autonomy to Kashmiris. More often it created a sort of hatred in Army personnel leading to a brutal human rights violations in Kashmir. Similarly the rise of Bhindrawala and Punjab terrorism was another creation of Indira which inculcated an hatred among Indian citizens that culminated in repugnant anti-Sikh riots after her death.
Coming to economics, well she took many great decisions but could not hold down the high rate of Unemployement. She talked of "Garheebi Hatao" (Remove Poverty" but was not much successful in her motto. During 1982 asian games conducted under the control of Army, she actually picked up beggars from the streets of Delhi forcefully in trucks and left them outside in nearby states like UP, MP and Haryana.
Corruption was rampant in her govt of sixties and dynasty politics and sycophancy got a boost during emergency with Mr Devkant Barua bellowing "Indira is INDIA, INDIA is Indira". Surrounded always by a battery of "yes-men", her son Sanjay Gandhi executed excesses on common man defying all the limits of democratic law and order.
She was a nationalist but instead of uniting INDIA she actually divided her inciting animosity and hatred.
LITTE was funded and trained under her regime, that lead to decade long terrorism and her sons death and eventually ended into lakhs and lakhs of Tamilians loosing their lives in mass genocides in Srilanka.
She was no doubt a patriot, had a deep understanding of Indian politics but she lacked the way. When she became mature enough, it was too late and the culture that flourished under her reigime is still haunting Indian National Congress and INDIA. Had she been inclusive and rationale, there had been no Caste politics, no "Kamandal", no riots and no terrorism in Kashmir. Lots and lots of precious lives could have been saved.
Thanks
"Dictators fail when they are not mature enough, Democracy fails when people are immature"
ReplyDeleteUNCLE SAM
yea, if you look after a half a century, you can say yes Indira failed in her ambitions, Nehru failed, god forbid you say Gandhiji failed. the typical armchair analysis. But can any one for a sake ever predict what is going to happen to India in next 5 years downline, atleast 1 year. I guess no. So there were very rare instances of visionaries and Indira was one among them.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt we would have been from different banana republics had there been no Indira. Yes she had created a bunch of sycophants and the yes men...but at such a nascentlevel India would have had no luxury of multiple voices especially with colonial military, people comfortable under the thanashahi royals, business heads trying to own half of population and land atleast. Even Nehru was having these qualities of not entertaining multiple voices. Just for example try to start a company/trust with 5 of your colleagues and ask them idea how to make it run...you run to the street guaranteed.
I feel the only fault i find in her was an unnecessary emergency...but it was a blessing in disguise, people reinvented what is meant by freedom.
And for your kind information Kashmir was never having much troubles before the 1987 rigged elections,and a series of troubles followed it. Pakistan used the opportunity for the first time and successfully implemented their agenda. Kashmir had dissent before, but it was never violent, nor it was so sessionist (in 1965 war the Kashmiris themselves caught the pakistani paratroopers who landed in their land and handed over to Indians much to the displeasure of pakistan...which made a very grand plan to seize kashmir by force)
similar is the case with LTTE...indian intelligence traine PLOTE (and not LTTE which was against PLOTE), so as to fight the ultranationalists in Srilanka. had she got it her way there could have been a Tamil republic in Srilanka too...I dont know whether it is a good or bad step, but it was bold step. Also similarly she got her fingers bunrt with the sikh militancy. If you take 10 steps that too uncalculated it will fail atleast thrice i feel. Even Gandhiji had bitter experience with chauri chaura incident.
What is the meaning of rational...The sikh militancy was defenitely a product of her failure, but it was never inevitable. The call for sikhland was there right from 1947 (much more than the Kashmir troubles in those days). but blaming here for Kashmir is not right...Kashmir was the out come of the negligence by our successive rulers (there was a wonderful opportunity after 1965 to settle it for ever, but the pacifists hijacked it)...1971 was tight, Nixon even send a nuclear aircraft carrier to bully India to their terms. Had she had her way that would also have been done with.
Failure, rather partial success, of the socialist movement (donot undermine the cultural value of the socialist movement which brought to our country, today all parties in India are by default socialist (even BJP which is more traders party, has the worlds largest trade Union BMS)) was i guess due to the timing...a nation without much of the resources could barely afford a socialistic approach. Also people who are used to the colonial and monarchic life would barely be able to come into terms to life of equality.
infact the biggest success i beleive of Indira was not Bengladesh but the final nail in the coffin of monarchy in India which got into the real national integration.
I would stopshort of calling Indira is India, but Indira was for India...infact a very rare gift from destiny to our (eternally neglected by destiny?) country.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteMy sincere advice to those who were either kids wandering in diapers or those who were not born at all, just find out the scripts of the Indira's speeches. It was she who imprinted in peoples mind saying again and again "Kashmir is an integral part....". 1987 elections were rigged. Who was in the center? The great Indira's Son who was utterly inexperienced in politics and the handling of political affairs were done primarily by the "yes-men" of previous Indira's time.
And for your kind information I should say that Militancy in Kashmir has remained since Indian independence. Leader of one such organisation Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Force, Mr. Makbool Bhat was hanged in 1984 and instantly he became a martyr. Militancy after 1989 is largely linked to this incidence under the so called great Indira's regime.
Sikh terrorism and Emergency can not be ignored. Tomorrow you will say what was the crime of Modi, just 2003 riots? or Hitler did not do anything wrong, just the world war?
Indira was called by some people as Iron Lady but sensitive issues are never solved each and every times by dictatorial actions. She wanted to use force every where, in a similar way as the America as a nations is doing and in turn sinking.
In her life times only she failed on political fronts in Punjab, Kashmir and Srilanka.
LTTE was among the six terrorist organisations funded and trained by India and the policy started in Indira's regime only. (http://sundaytimes.lk/970119/plus4.html).
So the fate of Rajiv Gandhi's assassination was written unknowingly by his own mother!
btw the interms of human history all of us are not kids but sperms wandering for fertilization. So lets not take such stands that 'you were not born when this occurred'. It is also told that history is the science of lying and also as history is always written by the victor. But if you consider it as one of the sciences (arts, since imagination is the limit?) you have to go by what is widely accepted and based on some evidences.
ReplyDeleteThe Kashmir issue was as you mentioned not started after independence, but even before that. in the late 1800s there were rebellion by the craftsmen which was repeated in the 1930s. Also one bone of contention was that the Dogra king owned all land and peasants were fleeced (how much it is true, apologies i dont know). This again came to the fore after independence when the Afridis (tribesmen, as aggressive as the shahid afridi) backed by Pakistani army occupied most of the land (which was even violent against the kashmiris whom they were supposedly supporting), and Nehrus dithering for action (might sound foolish to us today but would have been a pragmatic decision of a statesman to have an India who is world leader) coupled with weak defences of the king, made the matter worse. India could retake approximately 2/3 of J&K while Pakistan retained the remaining.
All parties including India, Pakistan, Kashmiris themselves, the Dogra King,( and later china even) are all equally guilty in the current situtation.
The militancy of JNK was not with overt public support, best example as i mentioned was the 1965 war. If really there was support from kashmiris for a separation at that time, they would have been by then (Read operation Gibralter and operation Gransdslam)...infact very ambitious operation, but poorly planned, would have been more successful had there been support from kashmiris. To make the matter worse they themselves caught the paratroopers landing on kashmir to our police. It is said that one of the aim of the insurgency from Pakistan otherthan to cut kashmir from India, is to punish the kashmiris for the betrayal (how far true?, apologies again).
The hanging of militant leader would be one of the accelerating events which culminated in the rigged elections.
Indira would not have been largely responsible for the increased seperatist movement (may be Rajeev could be held responsible, for neglect of signs of rebel). After 71 war, pakistan for the first time felt an existential threat from India, and learnt from its enemy. First incite seperatists ideals, then push trained merceneries and special forces to subversion, when culminating with political propaganda will be the best revenge. To the risk of India ever daring to attack pak, they vowed pakistan will eat grass but will go nuclear. And it was some foolish moves by none other than Morarji desai was responsible for the acceleration of paks atomic programme. follow read...
Indira gandhi tried to quell violence with iron fist. But donot forget that this was the common norm around world at that time (Read: Operation Wrath of God, by Golda mayer (1970s), Falkland wars 1981 (margaret thatcher), Invasion of vietnam, panama, nicaragua by US, Invasion of Afghanistan by USSR are just some to mention. It was considered legitimite to assasinate a foreign leader. And Indira did just what was common in her times.
ReplyDeletethe Afghan war and failure of USSR also contributed for the now jobless but indoctrinated mercenaries of the afghan war to join hands in the kashmir seperation.
I accept emergency as a failure. But sikh militancy was possibly mishandled hurting the sentiments of many sikhs, not caused by Indira.
Again the same story with LTTE (see the possible reasons why India supported LTTE and TELO)
and infact her own demise was written by herself.
So if hitler is to be blamed for the second world war, what were the 6 crore germans doing, what was wiston churchil doing, what was stalin doing, what japanese were doing...all professing peace? (Read: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Appeasement of hitler by UK). Yes he was the responsible devil for genocide, but others were defenitely no angels. I donot wish to comment on contemperory politicians as it might amount to personal attack.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteWho was there during 1971 war? Why the Kashmir issue not settled after the so called "Victory" of Indian military in that war? By the way if you for History I may recall that parts of Kashimir etc were in turned ruled by Moghul Dynasty and if I am correct they were under the Rule of Jehangir. The problem of whole Indian subcontinent can be ascribed to pre-indepence history but how far do you want to go ? 1800, 600, 540, 350bc? And if you believe that public opinion should be respected then why can't the Indian govt have a pubic referendum. The Indian part of Kashmir is under Indian control. let there be a Referendum with three simple answers : a)India b) Pakistan c)Independent Kashmir. Let that be under the observation of UN observers and let the referendum be carried out peacefully under UN peace keeping force with out the presence of Indian or Pakistani army. Lets see then what happened.
Dear, we are discussing about the Indira's deeds and you can ask any expert on Kashmir what was the effect of hanging of Bhatt gave an impact on Kashmir. If you are not satisfied you can go to the latest Wikileaks cables regarding Kashmir. I suppose that you believe Wikileaks more than anybody so you can refer it. You may know that the deleterious and detrimental effect of "yes-man" culture propagated by Indira. Since she was populist and since she was such a bid personality because of state controlled media and also because general public perception hails heroism, so no body dares to speak against her odds. Had she been a visionary she would have not propagated a culture of Arms and use of power. She was neither democratic and nor pr-people, she was only pro-Indira and pro-power. She was a power greedy politician who has nothing to with public life.
Thanks
Sir,
ReplyDeletebetter read 1971 war history. 1971 was a tight walk. India had decisively defeated Pakistan and was in a position for militarily settling the issues. But why are you forgetting that Nixon (whose anti Indira and anti India stance is famous). The nixon-kessinger duo was avowed to destroy USSR and allies. In this way he even tried to placate china.
USS Enterprises, the nuclear powered aircraft carrier battlegroup, was sent to Bay of Bengal in the closing days of war. An overt threat of using nuclear bomb!. Anticipiating this Indira signed friendship treaty with Soviet (an impossible feet for India, considering the fiercely independent foreign policy patronized by earlier leaders, and complete destruction of NAM) where by Soviets assured that if US enters war from Pakistans side, USSR will enter from India's. So two nuclear submarines were sent to tail the carrier group of US and were ordered to sink the carrier if any untoward incident happens. And from our side a clever move by our generals and admirals the war was finished before the Americans could threaten (actually whether US had real intention of using the vessels against India or it was just to intimidate India to a more amicable settlement of issues with pakistan is debated still, and thanks to this effort Indian military policy makers sees USA, the most closest democracy to India, with suspicion). also the admirals avoided any confrontation with the fleet and later famously told that had they seen any US ships they would have invited the commanders for a drink (US Navy doesnt allow alcohol on deployed ships, where as India used to)
Indira was invited for the London conferance to discuss the issues, where the US, UK and NATO clearly indicated that India should immediately cease the war and return to peacetime positions. Indira conveyed to them that given Indias advantage the call from home is to split Pakistan to 3 and not 2, and it will be difficult for her to overcome the opposition home. Her views were never granted, so she gave SHFJ Manekshaw, the 71s General, 2 days to end the war what ever outcome be. And the rest is history and creation of Bengladesh.
So she did what was impossible of the times, where was the chance to settle further? it will be day dreaming. compare it with the Kargil war, where our political heads didnt even dare to cross the LOC even by chance.
yes indeed she propagated a culture of yes man...but that was the need of hour. Yes she created a country which for the first time identified that if your military might is not used to effect you are no one...Again need of hour.
ReplyDeleteI am sure we would have been debating this from different republic had she been not there...And what more can i say about here vision. may be we agree to disagree.