Sunday, 15 October 2017

Revealing Facts about India’s Freedom Struggle

New Book:
Revealing Facts
India’s Freedom Struggle
Notable Personalities & Interesting Timelines

“I see it as clearly as I see my finger: British are leaving not because of any strength on our part but because of historical conditions and for many other reasons.”
—Mahatma Gandhi

And, the “historical conditions and other reasons” were not of the Congress/Gandhi’s making—they were despite them.
This book presents a comprehensive view of all the main groups and individuals associated with the Indian Freedom Movement right since the late nineteenth century: Political Parties, Revolutionary Groups, INA, Revolutionaries, Gandhians, and Non-Gandhians.
Particular of the prominent Muslim leaders, Britishers, and Governor Generals are also included.
‘Relevant International Timelines’ includes prominent international timelines relevant from the Indian angle.
The mega chapter ‘Interesting Indian Timelines’ chronologically covers all timelines, events, and developments relevant to the Freedom Movement right since 1600 CE.
The last chapter ‘What Really Led to Freedom & Partition’ summarises the REAL reasons behind the Freedom, Partition, and Pakistan

* * * * *

Rajnikant Puranik
October 16, 2015
Sunday, 19 March 2017

Sardar Patel: A New, Comprehensive Book

New Book

The Iron Man
who should have been
India's First PM

A Comprehensive Narrative  &
A Biography of the Best PM India never had


This book is unlike any biography on Sardar Patel, and unlike any narrative on Freedom Struggle, Partition & Pakistan, and the Integration of the Indian States.

Its USP is that it is not just a biography or an interesting story of the life of Sardar Patel, or just a piece of history. Rather, its USP is that, leaving no vital aspect uncovered, and interspersed with interesting episodes and no-holds-barred analysis, comments and observations, it is an engaging, gripping and  comprehensive story with a wide sweep, unlike anything written so far, on the following, with Sardar Patel in the background or in the foreground, and bringing out why Sardar Patel should have been India's first PM!

- Interesting, and non-so-well-known biographical details of Sardar Patel's life.
- Select compilation of what other stalwarts said about Sardar Patel.
- Select compilation of what Sardar said and wrote.
- Comprehensive and chronological coverage of India's Gandhian Freedom Struggle, and the role of Sardar and others in it.
- Dispassionate evaluation of the Gandhian Freedom Movement.
- Comprehensive coverage on "What constitutes a nation?", Partition, and the Creation of Pakistan.
- Sardar's stellar and decisive role during 1945-47 leading to India's freedom.
- The shocking story of Nehru’s unjust and illegal anointment as the Congress President in 1946, and the first PM of India, by Gandhi, sidelining Sardar.
- The fascinating story of the Integration of the 562 Princely States into India, expanding its geographical area by 40%--all thanks to Sardar Patel.
- Sardar’s decisive role in the forcible merger of Junagadh and Hyderabad.
- Kashmir, Sardar Patel, and botch-up by Nehru.
- Sardar vs. Nehru on China and Tibet.
- Sardar vs. Nehru’s Foreign Policy Blunders.
- Sardar vs. Nehru’s Socialistic Nightmare.
- Sardar vs. Nehru–Gandhi’s “Secularism”.
- Sardar’s functioning and his unmatched administrative abilities.

Quotes from the Book:
...[then] it seemed to me that Jawaharlal should be the new President [of Congress in 1946—and hence Prime Minister] ...I acted according to my best judgement but the way things have shaped since then has made me to realise that this was perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life... My second mistake was that when I decided not to stand myself, I did not support Sardar Patel.
— Abul Kalam Azad, ‘India Wins Freedom’

The Sardar, as Congress’s strongman was called, was determined to stay and solve whatever problems remained, rather than running away from them. He had long viewed Nehru as a weak sister and often wondered why Gandhi thought so highly of him.
—Stanley Wolpert, ‘Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny’

Patel possessed the organising ability of Bismarck, the astute statesmanship of Chanakya, and the single-minded devotion to the cause of national unity of Abraham Lincoln.
—VV Giri, ex-President of India

You saw his [Sardar’s] face;
it grew year by year in power and determination…
— Acharya Kriplani

…Here was a man with a crystal-clear mind who could see to the core of the problem within the shortest possible time…
—Frank Anthony

You know, I never go to Nehru to seek advice or guidance. I take a decision and just present it to him as a fait accompli. Nehru’s mind is too complex to wrestle with the intricacies of a problem. Those who go to him for advice rarely get a lead—and that only serves to delay matters... Nehru does not understand economics, and is lead by the nose by ‘professors’ and ‘experts’ who pander to his whims and fancies... We should have absorbed Kashmir for good and all... I do not know where we are going. The country needs a man like Patel.”
—Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, Nehru’s close friend and confidant

…Nationalist India was fortunate to have Sardar Patel to guide her destiny for a generation. But her misfortune is that there will be none to take his place when he is no more… On that issue Sardar Patel proved to be greater than the Mahatma, who had declared that India could be partitioned only over his dead body… Could Sardar Patel have had his way on the Kashmir issue, India would not be today spending fifty percent of her revenue on military budget… His [Patel] death is in fact a greater loss than that of the Mahatma… What India is today, however, is rather a creation of Patel than of his master.
—MN Roy, Communist Leader and Theoretician, in “Men I Met”

Sir Stafford Cripps had estimated it would take India 10 to 15 years, if not more, to liquidate the Indian Princely States and merge them with India. It was a surprise to all, and a tribute to the Sardar’s abilities, that he took, not 10 to 15 years, but less than 10 to 15 months to merge all the 548 Princely States with India, extending India’s geographical area by a whopping 40%.

* * * * *
Rajnikant Puranik
January 31, 2018
(March 2017)
Monday, 5 September 2016

On Dr Radhakrishnan's Birth Anniversary: Interesting Anecdotes

On Dr Radhakrishnan's Birth Anniversary :
Interesting Anecdotes

Although Hindus have been honouring gurus/teachers by celebrating ‘Guru Purnima’ for centuries, in the “secular” Nehru era, rather than reinforcing that tradition, we came up with “Teacher’s Day”, on the birth anniversary (5 September) of Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888–1975), our ex-President, who was a teacher and a great scholar. It’s fine: honouring gurus twice in a year. Gurus richly deserve it.

Anecdote - I
Related to 1962 India-China War

President Dr Radhakrishnan was so aghast at the Indian military debacle in the 1962 India-China War that when someone told him of a rumour that Lieutenant-General BM Kaul, the then Head of the Eastern Command had been taken prisoner by the Chinese, he commented:
It is, unfortunately, untrue.

Wrote S Gopal, son of Dr Radhakrishnan, and Nehru's official biographer, on 1962 India-China War:
Things went so wrong that had they not happened it would have been difficult to believe them.

Anecdote - II
Dr Radhakrishnan & Nehru

This is from S. Nijalingappa’s autobiography ‘My Life and Politics’:

“Another such instance I remember was when Dr. S. Radhakrishnan was president of India...I used to call on him whenever I was in Delhi...In his talks with me, as I believe with others too, he was very frank and open. One day, when I went to him he said, ‘Nijalingappa, today I put my foot down. Do you know why?’ He then continued, ‘Pandit Nehru comes to me and wants me to make his sister, Vijay Lakshmi Pandit, vice-president of India. I had to tell him, “You are the prime minister of India, your daughter is the president of Indian National Congress and you want your sister to be vice-president. What would people say? I cannot have it.” I put my foot down and sent him away.’

“I think Nehru had promised his sister the post and when she could not get it, she was very angry with her brother. She complained to me about it when she came to my house for breakfast, and said that her brother did not keep his promise. I did not tell her what Dr S. Radhakrishnan had told me.”

Incidentally, this is what a piece by GS Ujjanappa states in The Time of India of 12 June 2013 about Nijalingappa:
“The grand old man of Chitradurga [Nijalingappa] was known for his Gandhian ideology and had an unblemished innings of more than six decades in politics. While most ministers take months together to vacate their official residences and continue to enjoy the benefits even after demitting office, Nijalingappa was a class apart. The veteran Congressman politely declined the offer of free government accommodation in Bangalore after his wife passed away in 1989, and moved to his house in Chitradurga. He had built the house in 1932 from his earnings as a practicing lawyer.”

Anecdote - III
Dr Radhakrishnan & Netaji Subhas Bose

Subhas Bose had NOT died in that reported plane crash in Taipei on 18 August 1945.

Subhas was perhaps sent to Yakutsk prison (world’s coldest and harshest prison camp) by Stalin. There were many camps, known as Gulags, each with 500-1000 prisoners of war or political dissidents living with minimal facilities, in Yakutsk by the river Lena in Siberia. Most of the captives couldn’t survive the harsh weather and primitive living conditions, and died building new shafts for coal mines, roads, dams, and so on, for which they were deployed in that coldest city on earth.

There is also a startling report—unconfirmed—that India's the then ambassador to Russia, Dr S Radhakrishnan, was permitted to see Netaji Subhas from a distance in an undisclosed location in the Soviet Union. The details are not known.

In his book, ‘Back from Dead’, Anuj Dhar mentions that reportedly “the Ambassador was then taken to one of the labour camps in Siberia and he saw Bose from a distance of 10 metres. On his return, the Ambassador filed a report to the Prime Minister.” As per the book, many witnesses before Khosla Commission charged that Radhakrishnan and his predecessor Vijaylakshmi Pandit [Nehru’s sister] knew something about Bose’s presence in the USSR.

Dr Satyanarain Sinha was a member of the Constituent Assembly of India. He was a Congress MP elected to the Lok Sabha in 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967. He had been the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs. Sinha had an adventurous life. He had sailed for Europe in 1930, and studied medicine in Vienna. Reportedly, he had also once stayed at Sorrento near Naples with Maxim Gorky. He was fluent in several foreign languages, including German and Russian. He was a staff captain in the Soviet Army for two years during 1932-34; and also served as an interpreter for six months in Siberia where he befriended many Russian and German spies. He had joined Mussolini’s forces, and fought on the side of the Italians in the battle of 1935-36 in Ethiopia against the Allies. He returned to India in 1936. After 1947, on behalf of the Indian government, he worked as an informal secret agent, and travelled to Germany, Italy, France and Yugoslavia. He joined IFS (Indian Foreign Service) in 1950, and served as First Secretary in the Indian legation in Berne, Switzerland. He resigned from IFS after 2 years and became an MP.

Dr Satyanarain Sinha had also worked as an interpreter to Dr Radhakrishnan at Geneva. Dr Radhakrishnan was later ambassador to the USSR. Sinha had claimed that he had raised the issue of Netaji Bose with Dr Radhakrishnan. Said Sinha:
He (Radhakrishnan) warned me that I should not meddle in these things. I asked him why. Then he said ‘you will be spoiling your career, you will not be anywhere’.

Incidentally, Dr Radhakrishnan was proposed by Nehru as India’s first Vice President—a post that did not exist then as per the Constitution—upon his return from Russia. He remained Vice President for 10 years beginning 1952, and then President for 5 years.

Dr Radhakrishnan also became the first Bharat Ratna awardee in 1954. He deserved the award, but should he have got it ahead of the freedom fighters like Netaji Subhas Bose, Sardar Patel, Dr BR Ambedkar, Dr Rajendra Prasad, although he was not a freedom fighter.
The above are extracts from the book
"Foundations of Misery : Blunders of the Nehruvian Era"
Pages: 472; Words : 1,43,000

The book covers, among many other things, the following:
1)  History of Kashmir from the 6th century BCE to the times of Nehruvian Blunders on J&K.
2)  History of Tibet-China relations since the 7th century CE, and how Nehru allowed erasure of Tibet as a nation.
3)  India–Tibet/China Boundary History,
     1962 India–China War, and Nehru’s Himalayan Misadventure.
4)  Integration of Princely States; and how left to Nehru, Hyderabad would have been another Kashmir or Pakistan.
5)  History of Sinhala and Tamils of Sri Lanka; and Nehru’s neglect of the problems of Srilankan Tamils.
6)  Nehru: Foreign to Foreign Policy.
7)  Nehru & Netaji Subhas Mystery.
8)  Avoidable Internal Security Problems.
9)  India’s Self-Inflicted Poverty thanks to Nehruvian Poverty-Perpetuating & Misery-Multiplying Socialism.
10) Mental & Cultural Slavery thanks to Nehruvian Ways.
11) Feudal Dynastic Democracy thanks to Nehru.

* * * * *
Rajnikant Puranik
September 5, 2016
Friday, 29 July 2016

Nehru's 97+ Major Blunders

Study the past, if you would divine the future.

“...[then] it seemed to me that Jawaharlal should be the new President [of Congress in 1946—and hence the first Prime Minister] ...I acted according to my best judgement but the way things have shaped since then has made me to realise that this was perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life... My second mistake was that when I decided not to stand myself, I did not support Sardar Patel.”
—Abul Kalam Azad, ‘India Wins Freedom’

“He [Nehru] had no idea of economics. He talked of Socialism, but he did not know how to define it. He talked of social justice, but I told him he could have this only when there was an increase in production. He did not grasp that. So you need a leader who understands economic issues and will invigorate your economy.”
—Chester Bowles

"Malcolm Muggeridge, after seeing Nehru shortly before his death, characterized him as 'a man of echoes and mimicry, the last viceroy rather than the first leader of a liberated India',  and regretted that Nehru was much too British in his approach to have been able to bring about significant or radical changes in India."
— Sankar Ghose in ‘Jawaharlal Nehru, a Biography’

“It is completely impracticable for the Chinese Government to think of anything in the nature of invasion of India. Therefore I rule it out...”
—Jawaharlal Nehru

“We were getting out of touch with reality in the modern world and we were living in an artificial atmosphere of our creation...”
—Jawaharlal Nehru

But for a series of major blunders by Nehru across the spectrum—it would not be an exaggeration to say that he blundered comprehensively—India would have been on a rapidly ascending path to becoming a shining, prosperous, first-world country by the end of his term, and would surely have become so by early 1980s—provided, of course, Nehru’s dynasty had not followed him to power. Sadly, Nehru era laid the foundations of India’s poverty and misery, condemning it to be forever a developing, third-rate, third-world country. By chronicling those blunders, THIS BOOK HIGHLIGHTS THE FACTS BEHIND THE FACADE.

Blunders is used in this book as a general term to also include failures, neglect, wrong policies, bad decisions, despicable or disgraceful acts, usurping undeserved posts, etc.

It is not the intention of this book to be critical of Nehru, but historical facts, that have often been distorted or glossed over or suppressed must be known widely, lest the mistakes be repeated, and so that India has a brighter future.

THIS REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION retitled "Nehru's 97+ Major Blunders" comprises (a)122 Major Blunders compared to 97 of the first Digital Edition of July 2016, although the (slightly modified) original title (97+ instead of 97) is retained; (b)over twice the matter, and number of words; (c)and exhaustive citations and complete bibliography. 

My Other Book
(NOT a substitute for the book above.)
"Foundations of Misery :
The Nehruvian Era
Pages: 472; Words: 1,43,000

Click here for Hardback/Paperback Edition at Atlantic.
“This great doctrine [Panchsheel signed by Nehru] was born in sin, because it was enunciated to put the seal of our approval upon the destruction of an ancient nation [Tibet] which was associated with us spiritually and culturally... It was a nation which wanted to live its own life and it sought to have been allowed to live its own life...”
—Acharya Kriplani

“I hope I am not leaving you as cannon fodder for the Chinese. God bless you all.”
—India’s army chief KS Thimayya
in his farewell speech in 1961

“Things went so wrong [in India-China War] that had they not happened it would have been difficult to believe them.”
—S Gopal, Nehru's official biographer

“Poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that create poverty.” Such countries develop “extractive” institutions that “keep poor countries poor”.
—Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson in
‘Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty’
(Nehru laid foundations of EXTRACTIVE INSTITUTIONS that have been the root of India remaining a poor, third-rate third-world nation.)

“A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart; an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head.”
—David Lloyd George

The term "Hindu rate of growth" is highly inappropriate and unfair, besides being derogatory. The low rate of growth was thanks to Nehruvian policies. Therefore the appropriate term should have been the "Nehruvian rate of growth" or the “Socialistic rate of growth”.

Foundations of Misery goes into the details of the background, history and particulars of the Integration of the Indian StatesKashmir: BCE to 1950sTibet: Erasing a NationHimalayan Misadventure (India-China War); The Sinhala & the Tamils (On Sri-Lankan Tamil Problem); India’s Self-Inflicted PovertySocialism, Babudom & CorruptionBeing Foreign to Foreign Policy (Disastrous Policies on External Affairs); Ill-informed Internal PoliciesMental & Cultural SlaveryDistortion of History & Cultural HeritageDynacracy (Dynastic Democracy), and so on.

The book attempts to unravel the mystery and the truth in-depth on why India remains a poor, pathetic, third-rate, third-world country. How's it that India got so left behind? What was it that India did, or did not do, after independence, that everything is so abysmal and pathetic. Why an overwhelming majority of millions of Indians continue to be condemned to a life of unmitigated misery. 

What are the foundations of this misery?

And why all this unmitigated misery despite the overwhelming advantage of India as a nation with first-rate people,  plentiful natural resources, grand civilisational heritage, rich culture and languages, unmatched ethical and spiritual traditions, and relatively much better position in all fields—infrastructure, trained manpower, bureaucracy, army—at the time of independence compared to many east-Asian nations who have since overtaken us. 

Why did India fail to leverage such rich assets of a gifted country?

Incidents, information and revelations that would shock common readers and would make them exclaim: 'Oh God, was this so? I didn't know!' Not that the facts or revelations are new, only they are not commonly known.

There are significant differences between my this book and my other book 'Nehru's 97 Major Blunders'. Each serves a different purpose, and one is NOT a substitute, or a summary, for the other. 'Nehru's 97 Major Blunders' has a much wider coverage on blunders, but does not go into the details and history like this book does.

For other books by the Author, and for their details, and “from where to procure”, please check:

* * * * *
Rajnikant Puranik
July 29, 2016
Updated: June 2018
Thursday, 14 April 2016

Ambedkar and Nehru

Ambedkar & Nehru
Extracts from the Book:
Foundations of Misery

Blunders of the Nehruvian Era

"Foundations of Misery : Blunders of the Nehruvian Era"

Pages: 472; Words: 1,43,000

The book covers, among many other things, the following:
1)  History of Kashmir from the 6th century BCE to the times of Nehruvian Blunders on J&K.
2)  History of Tibet-China relations since the 7th century CE, and how Nehru allowed erasure of Tibet as a nation.
3)  Indo–Tibet/China Boundary History, 1962 India–China War, and Nehru’s Himalayan Misadventure.
4)  Integration of Princely States; and how left to Nehru, Hyderabad would have been another Kashmir or Pakistan.
5)  History of Sinhala and Tamils of Sri Lanka; and Nehru’s neglect of the problems of Srilankan Tamils.
6)  Nehru: Foreign to Foreign Policy.
7)  Nehru & Netaji Subhas Mystery.
8)  Avoidable Internal Security Problems.
9)  India’s Self-Inflicted Poverty thanks to Nehruvian Poverty-Perpetuating & Misery-Multiplying Socialism.
10)  Mental & Cultural Slavery thanks to Nehruvian Ways.
11)  Feudal Dynastic Democracy thanks to Nehru.
12)  Summary of 57 Major Nehruvian Blunders.

Book Extracts related to Dr Ambedkar

Kashmir : Article 370

Dr BR Ambedkar was opposed to Article 370 for Kashmir.

Nehru had sent Abdullah to Dr Ambedkar to explain to him the position and to draft an appropriate Article for the Constitution.

Ambedkar had remarked: “Mr Abdullah, you want that India should defend Kashmir, India should develop Kashmir and Kashmiris should have equal rights as the citizens of India, but you don’t want India and any citizen of India to have any rights in Kashmir. I am the Law minister of India. I cannot betray the interest of my country.”

About Article 370, Sardar Patel had confided to his secretary, V Shankar, “Jawaharlal royega [Nehru will regret this].”

J&K Mess

Reference to the UN [on Kashmir] was something Sardar Patel, Dr Ambedkar and others were against, however, Nehru again went ahead with it publicly in his radio broadcast on 2 November 1947. Incidentally, plebiscite was held in Junagadh also, but it was conducted by India itself on 20 February 1948, managed by an ICS officer, CB Nagarkar—as arranged by Sardar Patel.


Ambedkar disagreed with the Tibet policy of India and felt that “there is no room for Panchsheel in politics”. He said that “if Mr Mao had any faith in the Panchsheel, he certainly would treat the Buddhist in his own country in a very different way.”

Panchsheel was only a “give away” with no reciprocal “take”. Through Panchsheel  India literally gave Tibet to China on a platter, without negotiating anything in return either for Tibet or for India. Panchsheel is actually a most eloquent example of the naivety of the Indian diplomacy and a shining example of what an international agreement should not be!

Acharya Kripalani had this to comment on Panchsheel: “This great doctrine was born in sin, because it was enunciated to put the seal of our approval upon the destruction of an ancient nation which was associated with us spiritually and culturally...It was a nation which wanted to live its own life and it sought to have been allowed to live its own life...”

UNSC Seat, Foreign Policy

Commented Ambedkar: "The government’s foreign policy has failed to make India stronger. Why should not India get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council? Why has the prime minister not tried for it?"

When UNO was formed, China was ROC—Republic of China—headed by Chiang Kai-shek. In 1949, Communists took over China and founded People's Republic of China (PRC ) under Mao. Chiang Kai-shek and his ROC were driven away to Formosa—now called Taiwan. ROC continued to be a member of the UN till 1971, and not PRC, as US and allies refused to recognise it. They did not wish to have another communist country as a member of the UNSC.

Reportedly, both the US and the USSR were willing to accommodate India as a Permanent Member of the UNSC in 1955, perhaps in lieu of Taiwan, or as a sixth member, after amending the UN charter. This Nehru refused! Nehru wanted the seat to be given to PRC, as Nehru did not want China to be marginalised! Even though not asked by China, India, of its own accord, had been vigorously advocating PRC for the Permanent Membership of the UNSC in lieu of Taiwan.

Reads a Business Line article “UN reforms—a fading mirage?” of 16 September 2009: “Ironically, around 1955, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was offered the disputed Chinese Permanent Security Council seat by the US to keep out the People’s Republic of China, and he also was sounded out by the USSR Prime Minister, Nikolai Bulganin, to allow China to take this seat while giving India a sixth permanent seat in the Security Council. Nehru rejected this offer in deference to China. History may have been different if  this offer had been subjected to serious negotiations. Through the decades since, we have been  struggling for this seat.”

It was almost as if Nehru, for reasons one cannot fathom, totally ignored India’s own strategic interests!

Writes Arun Shourie in ‘Are we deceiving ourselves again?’: “...The Communists seize power [in China]. Panditji [Nehru] is the first to ensure that India recognizes the new Government. He also urges countries like U.K. to hasten recognition. Although, it is Chiang Kai-shek who has supported India’s struggle for independence...Panditji immediately begins championing the cause of the new Government [of China]. He urges the British, the Americans, in fact everyone he can reach, that the Nationalist Government [of Chiang Kai-shek] must be made to vacate its seat in the United Nations, and that seat—which means necessarily the seat both in the General Assembly and the Security Council—must be given over to the Communist Government...”

Ambedkar criticised Nehru’s foreign policy for trying to “solve the problems of other countries and not [exerting] to solve the problems of our own country!”

Belated Bharat Ratnas

Bose was awarded Bharat Ratna posthumously in 1992, which was later withdrawn on a legal technicality, in response to a Supreme Court directive: Government was asked to submit conclusive evidence of Netaji's death—which it could not—on a PIL as to how the award could be posthumous. However, the intriguing point is how come they thought of the award to Netaji only in 1992—even though the amendment to give awards posthumously was made in 1955 itself?

Like for Bose, Bharat Ratna was awarded even to Sardar Patel in 1991 and to Dr Ambedkar in 1990! And, that too because there were non-Dynasty governments since December 1989—VP Singh, then Chandra Shekhar, followed by Narsimha Rao.

Incidentally, Dr BR Ambedkar was declared as “The Greatest Indian after Gandhi” in the Outlook–CNN-IBN–History18 TV Channel–BBC Poll, the results of which were announced on 15 August 2012. Yet, he was given Bharat Ratna only in 1990. In the Poll, while Ambedkar topped with 19,91,734 votes, Nehru, at the bottom at number 10, got just 9,921 votes!

To name a few more,  Radhakrishnan was awarded Bharat Ratna in 1954, Rajaji in 1954, Nehru in 1955—when he was himself the PM, Govind Ballabh Pant in1957, BC Roy in 1961, Zakir Hussain in 1963, Indira Gandhi in 1971—when she was herself the PM, VV Giri in 1975, Kamaraj in 1976, Vinoba Bhave in 1983, MGR in 1988, and Rajiv Gandhi in 1991! But, Sardar Patel, Subhas Chandra Bose and Dr Ambedkar, being not as great as these worthies (!!), got it later! The Dynasty did not like them!! It has been that personal in our feudal democracy. Of course, the only unjust thing that the Dynasty did was to have left out poor Sanjay Gandhi!

There were those who were more deserving to the many who got. For example, why not to Verghese Kurien of the Amul fame? Narayan Murthy has rightly remarked: “If our country does not stand up and salute Dr Kurien with a Bharat Ratna, then I don’t know who deserves it more.”

That great man from Assam, Gopinath Bordoloi, despite his achievements—far more than most of the Indian leaders, with the added uniqueness that like Sardar Patel, who was instrumental in expanding the Indian territory by about 40% by accession of the Indian Princely States, Bordoloi helped expand India’s geographical boundary to Assam and the Northeast—was not awarded Bharat Ratna by the successive Congress Governments starting from Nehru, while many, not as deserving, got that award. He had opposed Nehru—and for good reason. It was only when a non-Congress government came to power that Bordoloi, a veteran Congressman, was awarded the Bharat Ratna posthumously in 1999. That was thanks to Atal Behari Vajpayee.

Non-dynasty greats can wait, may even die, there is no hurry. Posthumously, Ambedkar got it in 1990, Sardar Patel in 1991, Netaji Subhas Bose in 1992 and Bordoloi in 1999, when all the four of them should have been the first to get it in 1954 when the award was introduced. But, dynasty-scions, great or otherwise, can’t be made to wait: two allowed themselves to be awarded Bharat Ratna when they were themselves in power—Nehru in 1955 and Indira Gandhi in 1971—while Rajiv Gandhi was awarded the same soon after his death in 1991!! When sounded for Bharat Ratna, Maulana Azad declined and told Nehru it was totally improper for those deciding on the awards to pin the medal on themselves! Azad got it posthumously. There ought to be a provision to withdraw the awards given if it is later found that those awarded did not really deserve it.

Disgraceful Behaviour of Nehru

In an article, A Case For Bhim Rajya, the author S Anand describes a shocking incident. It appeared in the Outlook issue of 20 August 2012—a special issue on BR Ambedkar, after being declared “The Greatest Indian After Gandhi” in the poll conducted in 2012 by the Outlook along with the CNN-IBN and History18 TV Channels with BBC. It reads:

“Let us begin at the end, with one of the worst humiliations in Ambedkar’s life, less than three months before his death. On September 14, 1956, exactly a month before he embraced Buddhism with half-a-million followers in Nagpur, he wrote a heart-breaking letter to prime minister Nehru from his 26, Alipore Road residence in Delhi. Enclosing two copies of the comprehensive Table of Contents of his mnemonic opus, The Buddha and His Dhamma, Ambedkar suppressed pride and sought Nehru’s help in the publication of a book he had worked on for five years: ‘The cost of printing is very heavy and will come to about Rs 20,000. This is beyond my capacity, and I am, therefore, canvassing help from all quarters. I wonder if the Government of India could purchase 500 copies for distribution among the various libraries and among the many scholars whom it is inviting during the course of this year for the celebration of Buddha’s 2,500 years’ anniversary. Ambedkar had perhaps gotten used to exclusion by then. The greatest exponent of Buddhism after Asoka had ruthlessly been kept out of this Buddha Jayanti committee presided over by S. Radhakrishnan, then vice president...Worse, when Nehru replied to Ambedkar the next day, he said that the sum set aside for publications related to Buddha Jayanti had been exhausted, and that he should approach Radhakrishnan, chairman of the commemorative committee. Nehru also offered some business advice, gratuitously: ‘I might suggest that your books might be on sale in Delhi and elsewhere at the time of Buddha Jayanti celebrations when many people may come from abroad. It might find a good sale then.’ Radhakrishnan is said to have informed Ambedkar on phone about his inability to help him.

This is the vinaya that the prime minister and vice-president of the day extended to the former law minister and chairperson of the drafting committee of the Constitution. It was suggested with impertinence that Ambedkar could set up a stall, hawk copies and recover costs...”

It is a shocking lack of grace and courtesy. Couldn’t they have spared a few thousand for Ambedkar’s great works—when the Government could spend lacs on all kind of sundry and selected and collected works of Nehru and Gandhi. The Government  had also refused to publish the collected or selected works of two other great leaders: Sardar Patel and Subhas Bose.

The Ambedkar memorial in the capital is in bad shape. Writes Neha Bhatt in an article, A Fall Into Sear And Yellow Leaf, in the Outlook magazine of 20 August 2012: “The untended grounds of 26, Alipur Road, in New Delhi’s upscale Civil Lines neighbourhood, give a telling foretaste of the overall neglect of the building. It’s hard to believe that this is the Dr Ambedkar National Memorial, where the man spent his twilight years and breathed his last. The visitor’s book here reveals more than the walls themselves—scribbled in by the few visitors it receives, some all the way from Maharashtra, Haryana, Gujarat, are urgent requests, not only for a ‘better’ memorial, but for basic amenities like fans, lights and some ventilation.”

Academics : Nehru vs. Ambedkar

Nehru’s academic achievements  were rather modest. He was a graduate and had passed the bar exams.
Writes MJ Akbar in Nehru: The Making of India: “Eventually  when he [Jawaharlal] passed in the second half of the second class, Motilal was relieved enough to celebrate lavishly...Motilal was acutely terrified that his son might fail, so even such moderate results were cause for celebrations... Motilal had set his heart on sending his son to the Indian Civil Service...He called the ICS the ‘greatest of services in the world’...But the weak Second [class of Jawaharlal Nehru] at the end of Cambridge persuaded Motilal that his son was unlikely to get through the tough ICS examinations...His [Jawaharlal’s] expenditure in 1911 was £800, enough to pay for three years of an ordinary student’s existence...”

Contrast this with Ambedkar who often skipped meals or ate frugally to save money when he was studying in London. In Dr.Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Dhananjay Keer mentions that  Ambedkar subsisted in London on mere £8 a month! That amounts to £96 a year. Compare this with £800 a year of Nehru, which excluded expenses for several other requirements that were separately arranged by Nehru’s father. Writes Dhananjay Keer: “After this the second round of reading began at his residence. About ten at night the fire in the stomach seemed to suppress the fire in the head and made Ambedkar wriggle. He was mad with hunger. An Indian acquaintance of his had made him a present of a bundle of thin crisp Indian wafers called papad. He secured a thin tin plate to fry those crisp wafers. A cup of tea and four pieces of papad would partly appease the intensity of his hunger...”

With all those handicaps Ambedkar graduated in Political Science and Economics from Bombay University in 1912. On scholarship from the Maharaja of Baroda, he went to New York in 1913 and earned the degrees of Master of Arts in 1915, followed by Doctorate in Philosophy in 1916 from the Columbia University. Thereafter, he went to London, where he joined the Grays Inn for Law and the London School of Economics (LSE) for Economics. He earned his second doctorate—Doctor of Science—from LSE. He also became a barrister.

While Nehru scraped through graduation, Sardar Patel had topped in his exams in London. Subhas Bose was a brilliant student at Cambridge who had also cleared ICS exam. Dr Rajendra Prasad was a great scholar who always topped in his class—his examiner had once written a comment on his answer sheet: “examinee is better than examiner”.

Writes Perry Anderson, a British historian and political essayist, and Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA:
Nehru had enjoyed the higher education Gandhi didn’t have, and an intellectual development not arrested by intense religious belief. But these advantages yielded less than might be thought. He seems to have learned very little at Cambridge, scraping a mediocre degree in natural sciences that left no trace thereafter, did poorly in his bar exams, and was not much of a success when he returned to practise law in his father’s footsteps. The contrast with Subhas Chandra Bose, a brilliant student of philosophy at Cambridge, who was the first native to pass the exams into the elite ranks of the Indian civil service and then decline entry to it on patriotic grounds, is striking. But an indifferent beginning is no obstacle to subsequent flowering, and in due course Nehru became a competent orator and prolific writer. What he never acquired, however, was a modicum of literary taste or mental discipline. His most ambitious work, The Discovery of India, which appeared in 1946, is a steam bath of Schw√§rmerei [sentimental enthusiasm]. It would be unfair to compare Nehru to Ambedkar, the leader of the Untouchables, intellectually head and shoulders above most of the Congress leaders, owing in part to far more serious training at the LSE and Columbia. To read Ambedkar is to enter a different world. “The Discovery of India”—not to speak of its predecessor, “The Unity of India”—illustrates not just Nehru’s lack of formal scholarship and addiction to romantic myth, but something deeper, not so much an intellectual as a psychological limitation: a capacity for self-deception with far-reaching political consequences.”

In fact, if one goes through the writings of Ambedkar, one finds them to be works of vast, in-depth study, powerful analysis, and brilliant and perceptive understanding of issues; quite unlike the fluffy romanticism, airy views and superficial treatment of Nehru, and his attempt at show off. Ambedkar’s views on religions, castes, Islam, Buddhism, Pakistan, Kashmir, China, foreign policy and so on are worth reading.

You find Nehru devoting several chapters to socialism and Marxism in his book, Glimpses of World History, without dealing with the reported pathetic state of affairs in Russia. His treatment is more romantic than critical. He talks of Marxism, but there is no contrasting coverage on Adam Smith and others, or on the most robust economy of the time—that of the US. There is little attempt in his books to critically assess and evaluate competing options. He talks of state controls and its benefits in his chapter on Marxism, never once questioning that the state itself could be mafia-like, and the biggest exploiter. It is presumed that the state would be a nice, just, empathetic, kind do-gooder, full of compassion. Further, he does not touch upon things like entrepreneurship, individual initiative, and such other critical factors. In the absence of a holistic coverage on the vital aspects that affect economy, his treatment appears no more than just a superficial story. Nehru fancied himself to be a student of history, international relations and foreign policy—actually, a master of these subjects, going by the books he wrote and the way he pontificated—but sadly, he ignored lessons from history, as the results of his policies proved.

Naming Universities

Why JNU—Jawaharlal Nehru University? Nehru’s academic achievements  were rather modest. He was a graduate and had passed the bar exams. Writes MJ Akbar in Nehru: The Making of India: “Eventually  when he [Jawaharlal] passed in the second half of the second class, Motilal was relieved enough to celebrate lavishly...Motilal was acutely terrified that his son might fail, so even such moderate results were cause for celebrations...”

Why IGNOU—Indira Gandhi National Open University? She was not even a graduate! You see poor boys and girls in the most backward regions of India doing graduation and post-graduation under trying circumstances, and here you have a person, with all the financial and family support, and even expenses for education abroad, not doing even graduation.

Then, why name these important, national universities after such persons? Why not name them after Ambedkar who earned a double doctorate from abroad despite heavy odds and extremely meagre resources? Or, after other great academics or scientists like say CV Raman, the Nobel Laureate, or SN Bose, or JC Bose, or Panini. Or, after other national leaders like Dr Rajendra Prasad, Dr Radhakrishnan, Subhas Bose, Rajaji, Sardar Patel who were also great academics. Dr Rajendra Prasad was a brilliant student throughout his academic career, who acquired doctorate in law; Dr Radhakrishnan was a distinguished scholar and a doctor in philosophy; Subhas Chandra Bose was among the top scorers in ICS; and Sardar Patel had topped the Barrister-at-Law examination in London.

* * * * *
Rajnikant Puranik
April 14, 2016
Thursday, 31 December 2015

Bewildering Questions, Part-6 (Sonia-Rahul Gandhi)

A Bunch of Bewildering Questions : Part-VI

Bewildering Questions (1) : Freedom, Partition, Socialism, Dynacracy
Bewildering Questions (2) : Nehru's "Exemplary" Score-Card
Bewildering Questions (3) : Indira Gandhi
Bewildering Questions (4) : Sanjay Gandhi
Bewildering Questions (5) : Rajiv Gandhi

5G : Rahul Gandhi & Sonia

(1G=Motilal Nehru, 2G=Jawaharlal Nehru, 3G=Indira, 4G=Sanjay/Rajiv, 5G=Rahul)

What makes people support (even if it's a dwindling support) the Dynasty and Rahul-Sonia?
That's a genuine mystery!
There is NOTHING to support why they deserve or should ever receive such a support.
Still, the backing to them is not yet a zilch!

What makes Congress workers and supporters back the Dynasty, the Rahul-Sonia duo? What's so inspiring about them?
Decidedly, nothing inspiring about them!

It's not out of any nationalistic or patriotic zeal that they support them, or any faith that they would do any good for the country.

They are there looking for crumbs. By demonstrating their slavish loyalty, they hope to climb up the ladder, and embark on a road to persoanl prosperity. They have before them shining examples of their predecessors who are now senior leaders in the party, and have since become obscenely wealthy and powerful, thanks to their having been doormats for the Dynasty; and for having done the dirty work for the Dynasty, and, of course, for themselves too!

Small-mindedness is the hallmark of the Dynasty and the Congress. They are medieval and feudal in their workings. Most of the Congress leaders, young and old, are but courtiers and hangers on, adept at palace intrigue, and aware that loyalty matters more than good work and competence.

Why do educated, competent professionals like Manmohan Singh, Moily, Chidambaram, Sibal, and scores of others kowtow to the good-for-nothing Dynasty, and to the dumbo-duos like Rahul-Sonia?
Yet another mystery!

Are the knowledeable and the wise and the competent condemned to growel at the feet of the crafty, the cunning and the devious, who are otherwise (where it matters for the good of the nation) dumbos?

Greed for power and pelf makes you lackeys.

Persons like Mamohan Singh may not be after money, but they are certainly after power. Wrong is wrong, whether you do it for money or material, or for position and power.

Why even educated young like Jyotiraditya Scindia or Sachin Pilot or Milind Deora fawn around the Dynasty, and Rahul-Sonia?
Apparently, it is in their blood!

Madhavrao Scindia and so also the fathers of the other two kowtowed to the Dynasty: to Rajiv Gandhi and Indira Gandhi. It's so nauseatingly feudal. My father slaved for your father or mother; now I would do so for you!

Imagine Jyotiraditya Scindia and Madhavrao Scindia from the Maharaja of Gwalior Dynasty shamelessly slaving for the Nehru Dynasty! If indeed Indira (check her record here), Rajiv (check his record here), Rahul and Sonia were capable and competent people one could understand, but knowing what they have been, and yet slaving for them!!

What about the (predominant) Main Stream Media (MSM) and host of (generally leftist/"secularist") writers, historians, academics, scientists, artists and intellectuals? Why are they soft towards the Dynasty? Aren't they aware of their pathetic record of over six decades after independence? Aren't they aware of their obvious incompetence? Why the support then?
Some may genuinely (even if wrongly) regard the Dynasty as fine.
But, the majority do so out of some vested interest or the other.

Many have been the beneficiaries of the overlong Dynasty Raj. They can't be thankless. Many have since been deprived of the booty, or are in danger of being deprived of it. They pine for their good old days (which have been the terribly bad old days for the nation). Many have been tryring to somehow discredit the current dispension, and bring back their "good" old days.

That said, now let us look at all the relevant facts, and raise appropriate questions with regard to Rahul and Sonia Gandhi to evaluate their suitability.

Do they have an impressive academic background?
Rahul Gandhi is reportedly BA, MPhil.
Sonia Gandhi is not even a graduate, perhaps not even High-school pass!

Is it true that they had tried to be deliberately economical with truth on their educational qualifications?
Sonia Gandhi had claimed in her affidavit filed as a contesting candidate before the Rae Bareli Returning Officer in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections that she had a diploma in English from the University of Cambridge, UK. The fact is that she did an English course from some coaching school located in Cambridge!

There had been controversies on Rahul Gandhi's degrees, but they were later clarified.

Is it true that deficit education, and being casual, insincere and irresponsible about studies, is a Nehru Dynasty trait?

The academic achievements of even the best in the lot, that of Jawaharlal Nehru, were rather modest. He was a graduate and had passed the bar exams.

Writes MJ Akbar in Nehru: The Making of India: “Eventually  when he [Jawaharlal] passed in the second half of the second class, Motilal was relieved enough to celebrate lavishly... Motilal was acutely terrified that his son might fail, so even such moderate results were cause for celebrations... Motilal had set his heart on sending his son to the Indian Civil Service... He called the ICS the ‘greatest of services in the world’... But the weak Second [class of Jawaharlal Nehru] at the end of Cambridge persuaded Motilal that his son was unlikely to get through the tough ICS examinations...”

Indira Gandhi failed to complete her graduation despite spending considerable time and money in prestigious institutions in India, Europe and Britain.

Sanjay Gandhi never attended college!

Rajiv Gandhi did not do his graduation despite all the expenses at London. He was at Cambridge till 1965, but left it without a degree, because he did not appear for the examinations. He joined Imperial College, London in 1966, but again left it after a year, without a degree.

Sonia Gandhi? That we have seen above.

Rahul Gandhi? He joined St Stephen’s College in Delhi, but left after a while without completing any course. He then joined Harvard, USA, but again left without obtaining any degree. He finally did graduation from the Rollins College, Florida, USA.

All the members of the Dynasty, despite all the money, support and facilities, have been gross under-achievers academically. Yet, they are qualified enough to rule India! And naming educational institutes after their name is justified!


It is worth noting that many of the freedom fighters were excellent academically. However, Jawaharlal Nehru happened to be an exception.

Sardar Patel had enrolled at the Middle Temple, one of the Inns of Court, as London’s law colleges were called, for a 36-month course in 1910. If one was diligent and intelligent, it was possible to complete the 36-month, 9-terms course earlier than stipulated. Sardar Patel appeared for the final examinations after mere 20 months, obtaining first class with honours, getting first rank, and thus topping the class, and winning prize of 50 pounds! Sardar Patel did so for he also wanted to economise on his hard-earned money: he had financed his education in London himself, out of earnings from his law practice in India. He didn't have the luxury of father's liberal finance, which Nehru had.

Subhas Chandra Bose was brilliant. He secured second position in the matriculation examination in 1913. He passed BA in Philosophy in First Class from the Presidency College in Calcutta. He stood fourth in the ICS examination in London.

Dr Rajendra Prasad had secured first in the entrance examination to the University of Calcutta and was awarded scholarship. He graduated in first division. Impressed by his answers in the exams, an examiner had once commented on his answer sheet "examinee is better than examiner". He passed Masters in Law with honors, and was awarded a Gold Medal. He then went on to complete his Doctorate in Law.

Dr BR Ambedkar was, of course, the best of the lot in education. Despite all the handicaps, he did double doctorate: PhD in Economics from Columbia University, USA, where he had gone on a scholarship; and Doctorate in Economics from the London School of Economics, again on scholarship!

Why did the Dynasty scions study abroad for ordinary courses that were available in India?
Another queer thing about the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty has been pursuing studies and courses abroad at considerable expense when those courses of similar or better standards were available in India.

Indira tried to engage in elementary studies abroad, Rajiv tried to do engineering in London. Why? Didn’t the family, which flaunted its patriotism, find good schools and colleges in India! One could understand if they were academically brilliant and went abroad to do some specialised courses not available in India, or went to prestigious colleges abroad for their better teaching. But, no. They went for ordinary courses; and mostly, they whiled away their time there, and precious foreign exchange.

Jawaharlal Nehru's expenditure in 1911 in London was £800, enough to pay for three years of an ordinary student’s existence. Contrast this with Ambedkar who often skipped meals or ate frugally to save money when he was studying in London. In Dr.Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Dhananjay Keer mentions that  Ambedkar subsisted in London on mere £8 a month! That amounts to £96 a year. Compare this with £800 a year of Nehru, which excluded expenses for several other requirements that were separately arranged by Nehru’s father. Dr Ambedkar did exceedingly well in his studies, while Nehru just scraped through. Another exemplary case was that of Sardar Patel who himself funded his studies in London through prior earnings from his law-practice in India.

But, does it matter if one does not have a good degree, or has not done well academically?
NO, if a person was unable to go in for higher studies on account of paucity of money, or because of some special circumstances.

YES, if you had all the monetary support, and all the facilities, and yet you either failed to finish your education or did poorly. That reflects badly on you. Perhaps, you have no self-discipline, or you lack commitment, or you possess no determination, or you are too casual and irresponsible and while away time, or you have low IQ. You need not be a topper, but blessed with all the facilities, you do need to do reasonably well.

Have they been successful in any field before getting into politics?
Not only have they not been successful in any field, they have never earned anything by the sweat of their brow. Rahul could not make good in all ventures he tried.

Unlike Sardar Patel, C Rajgopalachari, Jinnah, Dr Rajndra Prasad, etc., who had roaring law practice, and left their lucrative profession in the cause of national freedom, Jawaharlal Nehru, despite the established law-practice of his father Motilal, could not make any head way in the profession, and was ever dependent upon his father to maintain him and his family!

Do they have a record of social service or of having done some exemplary work before venturing into politics?
They have no such record.

Are they in politics because they failed in everything else?
That's what it appears to be. 

Have Rahul or Sonia proved themselves at the village level or district level or state level or central level?
They never had to prove themselves at any level or at any position.
Rahul has been running away from responsibilities. He could have become a minister in UPA-I or UPA-II, but he didn’t. Perhaps he is diffident and realises his own deficiencies. He is reluctant to get exposed.

What has been Sonia-Rahul's contribution or sacrifice for the nation?
The question of sacrifice does not arise. The Dynasty does not sacrifice. Either they sacrifice the nation, or the nation sacrifices for them. The Dynasty is too self-centred to serve or sacrifice. They mostly do things that help them remain in power.

Have Rahul or Sonia struggled or proved themselves to get to their current position of VP and President?
Sonia Gandhi registered as a primary member of the Congress Party only in 1997; but mere 62 days later she parachuted down as the President of the party! No hard work, no climbing up the ladder, no proof of capability, no proven achievements; only the Dynasty brand!!

Entering the politics in 2004 as an MP, Rahul jumped the hierarchy of many senior people, who had given their life to the party, to become the Congress General Secretary in 2007; and in 2013, without any achievement to his credit since entering politics, he took up the second highest position in the Congress Party as its Vice President, behind his mother, who was President!

They have got where they are now by way of feudal “dynastic rights”; and not on account of any merit or hard work or performance.

They never took up a government/ministerial position, which was there for them for the asking. Why expose oneself?

What has been their contribution in building up their political party?
Under them the party has suffered and has become much weaker, and far more corrupt. As the VP of the party, Rahul's performance has been disastrous. The Congress has been reduced to an all-time low of just 44 seats in the last Lok Sabha elections, and has been losing in most state elections.

Is Rahul capable of working long hours?
Judging by the way he runs away to foreign locations for holidays on slightest excuses, it is doubtful if he has it in him to apply himself.

The only problem with politicians taking 2 week [or 8 week] vacations every year is it’s about 50 weeks [or 44 weeks] too short.
—Jarod Kintz

Are they financially honest, non-corrupt, and above board?
During the decade-long rule of UPA-I and UPA-II between 2004 and 2014 there had been a large number of mini, medium and mega scams. Some mega scams established a record for the mind-boggling amount involved. All the scams and wrong-doings were caught not by the internal processes of the ministries, but by whistle-blowers, external people or CAG. Each time a scam was brought to light, the government, rather than pursuing it and bringing the culprits to book in view of the massive financial loss to the exchequer, tried to pooh-pooh it or suppress it or make light of it or dismiss it. They even tried to defame the messengers or attribute motives to them. In many cases they got vindictive.

All through, Sonia–Rahul called the shots. What was their role? Why didn’t they exert to ensure the culprits who caused such massive losses to the nation were severely punished and made examples of.

One does not know if Sonia–Rahul are personally honest or dishonest. But, this much is clear: they have little to show for their action against the dishonest or for curbing corruption.

Professional honesty is the real test.
It is not enough to be only personally honest. Where others report to you, and you are responsible for their performance, professional honesty demands you ensure the conduct of those under you is also honest and above board, and that they are not indulging in any malpractices and corruption. In case it is found to be otherwise, you need to take action against them. Your professional duty demands that you ensure the whole area or department or ministry or ministries under you, or the government controlled by the party you are President or Vice President of, perform their duty in an honest and professional manner. Professional honesty requires that while you yourself don’t do a dishonest or unprofessional act, you also don’t ignore those acts in others under you.

Personal honesty is important, but it is easier: If you are not a greedy person, or if you are already a well-provided person, or if you are by nature or upbringing upright, or if you are a self-respecting, principled person, or if you are a conscientious person, it is not difficult to be personally honest. So many are. In fact, you take pride in being so. It gives you a sense of self-worth. You feel good about yourself.

However, it is not easy to be professionally honest. Because, that requires competence to manage, evaluate, judge and control those under you.

What is superior: personal honesty or professional honesty?
Of course, professional honesty.
Because, professional honesty includes personal honesty as a sub-set or a pre-condition.

Professional honesty is what Narendra Modi summarises in his dictum: “Na khaunga, na khane dunga (I won’t take money, nor would I allow others to take money)!”

What is better? To have honest people or to have competent people?
You need people who are both honest and competent. It is not worth having in employment or on assignment people who are honest but incompetent, or people who are competent but dishonest.
Ex-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was personally honest, but dishonest in the higher level of honesty—professional honesty. He couldn’t measure up as a prime minister, hence was not competent. Ex-Defence Minister AK Anthony was personally honest, but incompetent.

Narendra Modi is professionally honest, which includes his being personally honest, and he is also competent on the job.

Wrote Pratap Bhanu Mehta in an article titled ‘Phantom democracy’ in The Indian Express of 9 May 2013: “...But the fact that the government did not even feel it proper to keep up appearances is a mark of how narcissistic and hubris-driven it had become. The responsibility for a culture of corruption, evasion, lying and sheer contempt for institutions lies directly at the door of Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. Their air of injured innocence has become nauseating...”

A leader must be mentally sharp?
Are Sonia-Rahul so?
Sonia-Rahul's responses belie mental sharpness.
Anything impromptu and they are at a loss. They can only handle and speak what is well-coached and well-rehearsed.

You cannot legislate intelligence.

Do Sonia-Rahul have the ability to comprehend complex issues?
Rahul is unable to either comprehend or articulate; he can only make wild critical comments.

During the Mayawati period in UP, Rahul Gandhi said in a certain context: “I feel ashamed to call myself an Indian after seeing what has happened here in UP.” Sure, there is much to feel ashamed about, not only in UP, but elsewhere too. Six PMs of India have been from UP—three from his own Dynasty. Congress ruled it since the pre-independence period, after the elections in the thirties. Post independence, Congress ruled UP for the first 40 years, barring some periods in-between. All through, since the late 1930s, the Dynasty members have been getting elected from UP, without a break. It is because Rahul’s dynasty did little for UP that the other parties displaced Congress. So, if Rahul feels ashamed, it is a genuine sentiment. He ought to feel ashamed of how his Dynasty has shamed all Indians—in UP, and elsewhere in India! He, his Dynasty and the Congress have plenty of reasons to feel ashamed: India’s pathetic poverty, crores in hunger, millions of children victim of malnutrition, wide-spread illiteracy, poor infrastructure, wretched living conditions, yet crores looted through mega-scams—CWG, 2G, Coalgate,’s  a long list.

Are Sonia-Rahul basically committed to doing good for the nation?
They are committed more to their Dynasty rule than to rule for the good of the nation. It shows up in their actions.

Are they familiar with the Indian culture and traditions? Do they have a good understanding of India? Are they analytical? Do they have good reasoning power?

Here are extracts from Rahul Gandhi’s gibberish at CII on 4 April, 2014:
There is a tendency to look at India as a country. In our everyday life we see India as a national structure. But if you go back slightly more than that, go back a hundred, two hundred years, you would find that India is energy, it is a force. If you go back a thousand years, two thousand years, you would find that force came from our rivers, Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati. We worshiped these rivers and the reason we worshiped these rivers was because that is where our energy came from, and everything we had was built on these rivers. Now we have gone way beyond that. We have built structures that are allowing this energy to rise, to explode...”

“...Democracy and technology have triggered a non-reversible chain reaction in India. This reaction is unstoppable. Nobody can stop it. We have to channel this reaction. We need to nurture it. We need to make it harmonious. We need to make this happen smoothly. We need to use the energy generated by this movement of people and ideas, the force this movement is generating, and we need to use it to empower everybody. Not one person, not almost everybody, but everybody...”

Can anyone beat Rahul in sheer nonsense!

Do they have a reasonable understanding of the issues of the poor and Dalits?
Here is a gem from Rahul Gandhi:
Yahan Hindustan mein hamara jaat ka concept hai. Is mein bhi escape velocity hoti hai. Dalit community ko is dharti pe Jupiter ki escape velocity chahiye. [In India we have caste. Dalits need Jupiter's escape velocity on Earth]

Isiliye agar aap history ko dekhe, jo dalit log hai, hum sab hai, Ambedkarji ko bahut garv se dekhte hai. Wo pehle aadmi hain jo esape velocity kar ke US chale gaye [Ambedkar was the first to achieve escape velocity and go to the US]

Jo leadership hai wo Mayawati ji ne capture kar liya hai aur doosre logon ko ubharne nahin deti. [Mayawati has captured the leadership and she does not allow others to emerge].”

What about Rahul and his Dynasty who never allow capable Congress leaders to emerge, lest they threaten their position!

Rahul seems to be so dumb the irony of what he says doesn’t hit him.

What are they: Leftist? Rightist? Centrist?
Leftist. Socialist. Populist.
Whatever is the short-cut to votes.
Note: Socialists, communists, populists can never do anything worthwhile for India. The facts, statistics and actual results on the ground have established beyond a shred of doubt that while Rahul's great grand father, Jawaharlal Nehru, with his poverty-perpetuating and misery-multiplying socialism, laid the foundation of India's still-continuing misery, his grand mother, Indira Gandhi, and father, Rajiv Gandhi, reinforced those follies and foundation; and he, with his mother, Sonia, rather than taking forward the good work done by the non-Dynasty prime ministers, Narsimha Rao and Atal Behari Vajpayee, turned India into a basket-case during UPA-I and UPA-II.

Do they have a reasonable grasp on the internal and external security issues?
It is doubtful if Rahul even understands these matters.
Mostly, he misunderstands.

As per the WikiLeaks, Rahul had told the US Ambassador to India in all seriousness that the Hindu terror was a greater challenge than the Islamic terror! What does this tell about his understanding of this serious issue of terror?

Do they have a good hold on foreign policy?
Rahul appears to be foreign to foreign policy.

In Gujarat, much before the last Lok Sabha and State elections, hinting at Modi, he said something to the effect that evil man like Mao Zedong also did development. This remark educated us on several things about Rahul. One, he has no historical knowledge. Mao's period was an economic disaster for China, like Rahul’s father’s, his grand-mother's and his great grand-father's was for India. Two, he has no idea about world leaders. Mao was certainly not an evil person. Yes, many of his ideas, which he genuinely believed in, thinking they would benefit China, proved disastrous. But then, many of the things Nehru and Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi did also proved disastrous. Were they evil? Three, the person having ambition to be the PM of India seems to have no idea on diplomacy, and how to refer to leaders of other countries. China still reveres Mao. Four, Rahul does not know how to articulate what he wants to say. Five, anything impromptu, and Rahul is likely to blunder.

Overall, are they knowledgeable and well-versed with the national problems and issues, and have the ability to resolve them?  Do they have good and innovative ideas?  Are they good administrators? Good in execution? 
No. Haven’t demonstrated yet.

Like his mother, Rahul Gandhi has never held forth on any topic of importance, nor has he participated in any TV debates. He has never tried to explain and defend his viewpoints either in speeches or on TV or through articles in print-media. How then to know if he has any stuff? Actually, the very fact that he avoids all these is because he is afraid he would stand exposed. He has also not allowed himself to be subjected to grilling interviews. Times Now interview was an exception, and he got badly mauled in it. It’s doubtful if he would again take the risk.
He just makes a statement, and runs away.

Rahul has mostly weird ideas. And borrowed ideas: borrowed from the murky past. No originality seen yet. No whiff of freshness. Mouths bad-old, Nehru-Indira period stale, failed ideas that can only doom India.

Rahul Gandhi has a habit of running away from responsibilities. Both appear to be so diffident of achieving anything worthwhile that they have no confidence in shouldering any responsibility and getting results, making them crafty enough to ensure no accountability falls on them.

Do they demonstrate inspiring leadership?
Certainly not.
You can’t inspire unless you have practically proved through your own deeds that you can deliver and/or have made exemplary sacrifices. You make others and the nation sacrifice for you, not the other way round.

Are they capable of carrying party-persons along?
Congress party-persons are slaves of the Dynasty. So, the question of carrying them along democratically does not arise. While all are expected to only reverentially bend, many ambitious ones prefer to crawl before the Dynasty. A few who periodically rebel or protest are either thrown out or are line-attached till they come around and agree to be lap-dogs.

Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.
—Mark Twain

Can they manage well with the other opposition parties and groups?
Can manage with anyone, honest or dishonest, scoundrel or otherwise, as long as direct or indirect support to the Dynasty is assured.

Why opposition to the Land bill by Rahul-Sonia and the Congress is effectively anti-farmer? Why are Rahul-Sonia-Congress policies effectively anti-poor and anti-development?
What is right is not always popular and
what is popular is not always right.
―Albert Einstein

The amended Land bill would help acquire land with lesser hassles (while providing generous compensation and rehabilitation) for the five critical sectors, that include enriching rural facilities. It would help accelerate economic growth and generate jobs both in the urban and the rural areas. Rather than adversely affecting them, it would greatly help rural folk. There would be no losers. It would be a win-win situation for all.

Opposition to it is either driven by ignorance or by vested interests who wish to exploit it for spreading misinformation to gain vote banks at the expense of the nation.

Opposition to it is therefore effectively anti-poor, anti-farmer, anti-development, anti-prosperity, and pro-vote-bank-politics, and hence mischievous and ill-intended: it amounts to working against national interests.
Welcoming the changes made to the land acquisition act, former NAC member NC Saxena had himself commented that the 2013 UPA Land Bill moved by the then Minister of Rural Development Jairam Ramesh was effectively both anti-industry and anti-farmer.

No party can beat the Congress in sheer hypocrisy. If there is one party which has gained massively through crony capitalism and corporate-favouritism it is none other than the Congress. The “suit-boot ki sarkar” accusation of Rahul Gandhi is therefore totally unfounded, mischievous and irresponsible, and is a case of “Ulta chor kotwal ko dante”, because it is the Modi-sarkar which by putting-in sensible systems in place like 2G and coal auction is minimising the scope of crony capitalism and corporate-favouritism—the channels that many allege resulted in truck-loads of grease money for the Congress and its allies.

After having deprived the national exchequer of mountains of money through a series of scams, which effectively amounted to depriving the millions of poor of the benefits of that money, the Congress, in the most hypocritical way, went about further massively impoverishing the national exchequer by way of MGNREGA, FSA and farm loan waivers (where major amounts were defalcated) mainly to get votes and to continue in their misrule and corruption.

Like the term “suit-boot ki sarkar”, the term “anti-farmer” used by Rahul for the Modi government actually fit the Congress like a glove. Why are the farmers in distress? Why are they committing suicides? Why just one failed crop destroys many rural families? Why is a small farmer worse off than a city beggar? Why is there endemic poverty in rural areas? Why the rural infrastructure is so pathetic? It didn’t become so in the last one year of the Modi rule. It is thanks to the criminal misgovernance, neglect and faulty agricultural policies of the Congress since independence, and their poverty-perpetuating and misery-multiplying socialism.

Congress-Sonia-Rahul realise that Modi’s amended 2015 Land Act has the potential to accelerate the economic growth, create jobs, give a fillip to rural infrastructure and growth, and ultimately add to the broadening support base for the BJP and Modi—all of which would mean further marginalisation of the Congress. Hence, oppose the bill. What is good for the nation is not important. What is important is the survival of the Dynasty. Priority is for the Dynasty and the party, in that order, and not for the nation.

Congress-Sonia-Rahul are hoping that by their vigorous misinformation campaign on the bill they would be able to get back their rural votes. It exposes their bankruptcy of ideas. Apparently, the Dynasty is unable to think of anything positive to prevent or delay their becoming history.

Rahul is too self-centred to realise the damage he is doing to business sentiment by railing against corporates. Is it not irresponsible on his part to tar corporates and businesses in general just to score political points and retrieve his own pathetic position. Corporates work hard, provide jobs to millions, and bring prosperity to the people and the nation. What does Rahul do? Frequently fly off for holiday jaunts, spend tons of money on himself, and in the intervals between his jaunts, empathise with poor farmers, and curse and defame all those who had been working hard while he was having fun.

Rahul has lately been touring the countryside lamenting the condition the farmers are in and blaming the ruling party for their misery. Does he think people at large are fools that they would believe him. Don’t they know the current rulers are less than a year in the saddle. That the previous decade was the decade of the Congress and the UPA. And, that for most of the years since independence it has been the Congress and his Dynasty that has ruled, or rather misruled, India.

Hence, the public knows that their miserable, pathetic condition is thanks to the Congress and the Dynasty. If Rahul and the Congress-persons feel distressed and angry at the condition of the farmers they must slap themselves real, real hard; and must box and kick themselves each time a farmer commits suicide.

Rahul’s constituency Amethi has lost about 80% wheat crops due to unseasonal rains and hailstorms, and has also reported a number of suicides. But, Rahul is careful not to go for a padyatra there. He is answerable there. He would go only to the opposition-rules states of Punjab and Maharashtra where he can create a tamasha.

As per The Times of India, Mumbai report of 2 May 2015, pomegranate farmers of Karnataka are so desperate that they have written to the governor of Karnataka, “No yield, no money to repay the loans. The only option before us is to die.” Has Rahul Gandhi cared to go there? No. Because, Karnataka is ruled by the Congress, and Rahul does not wish to go to any place where he may be answerable. The hypocrisy of the Congress and the Dynasty knows no limits.

The fact is the Congress has never ever given a damn about farmers—since the Nehruvian times. The Congress and the NCP have reportedly been the biggest looters of farmers and farmlands. The CAG had found a huge scam even in their the loan-waiver of over rupees 50,000 crores in 2008, which helped them win votes and power. The mind-blowing irrigation scams under the Congress-NCP government in Maharashtra are well-known, so also land-grabs by their partymen. Land-scams in Haryana and Rajasthan under the Congress government are public knowledge. What have Sonia-Rahul done about them? Nothing. What is more, there are serious allegations regarding improper land-dealings against Sonia’s son-in-law and Rahul’s brother-in-law Robert Vadra. That being the background, with what face Rahul projects himself as a saviour of the farmers? And, why doesn’t the media question such claims?

What does one make of Rahul's sound bites?
I am often wrong, but never in doubt.

Well, here are some "namunas"/samples of Rahul's sound bites. Judge for yourself. Only short comments, where warranted, are therefore included.

Rahul at the AICC session in Jaipur on 21 January 2013: “...Last night each one of you congratulated me. My mother came to my room and she sat with me and she cried... because she understands that power so many people seek is actually a poison...”


As per reports in the media, the Election Commission on Friday, 9 May 2014, issued a show cause notice to the Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi for his alleged remarks at an election rally in Solan, Himachal Pradesh on May 1: “People from Japan ask me...They say we are scared over one issue. We will help you, we will prepare roads. But we are scared whether there will be peace...They say whether people of India will fight with each other or not?...This fear is there in our lives as well. If there is BJP, there will be violence. If there is BJP, 22,000 people will die, because they spread anger...This question was never raised before...”


Given below are extracts from Rahul Gandhi’s interview to Arnab Goswami of TimesNow on 27 January 2014.

Rahul: “...but what one has to do and this is central to what I keep saying is that democracy is about respect of processes. Democracy is about non-arbitrary decisions. Democracy is about spreading decisions; it is not about destroying processes. There is a process in the constitution and that process says, and it is clearly written in the constitution, and it says members of parliament are to be elected by the population and members of parliament are to elect the Prime Minister. All I am doing is respecting that process.”

Comments: Where was the democratic process when, rather than reversing the cabinet decision on the "ordinance on convicted lawmakers" internally through  discussions, Rahul chose to crudely stomp into meet-the-press programme of his party's general secretary Ajay Maken at the Press Club at New Delhi on 27 September 2013, and declared the ordinance as  “complete nonsense” deserving to be “torn up and thrown away”.

Prime Minister's former-advisor Sanjaya Baru has said, inter alia: “This type of blame on the government for a decision which was obviously taken in consultation with the party amounts to insubordination...You can't pretend to be a great hero at the cost of dignity of your Prime Minister...The principle of this government is that all credits will go to the party leadership and all blame for anything will go to the Prime Minister that has been the principle on which this government has been run for more than 9 years..." So much for the "democratic" spirit! And, how does his own position in the party thanks to his being a dynasty scion and his projection as a prime minister candidate match with the democratic spirit?


Rahul: “What Rahul Gandhi wants to do, is Rahul Gandhi and millions of youngsters in this country want to change the way the system in this country works. What Rahul Gandhi wants to do is empower the women in this country, wants to unleash the power of these women, I mean we talk about being a superpower...”

Comments: Who prevented him from doing so during the decade of UPA-I and  UPA-II? Did he achieve anything?


Rahul: “The BJP has prime ministerial candidate, the BJP believes in concentration of power in the hands of one person, I fundamentally disagree with that, I believe in democracy, I believe in opening up the system. I believe in the RTI, I believe in giving power to our people. We have fundamentally different philosophies...”

Comments: Let Rahul first relinquish power derived thanks to being a dynasty scion.


Rahul : “The congress party and the BJP have two completely different philosophies, our attack on the BJP is based on the idea that this country needs to move forward democratically, it needs push democracy deeper into the country, it needs to push democracy into the villagers, it needs to give women democratic powers, it needs to give youngsters democratic powers. It is about opening the doors of the congress party, about empowering the youth...”

Comments: For a dynast to talk of democracy—what could be more hypocritical!


Rahul: “Our political party is fighting an ideological battle against the BJP and let me draw out the two pillars—our party believes that women should be empowered, democracy should go to every house, that RTI, and the MNREGA paradigm should be further expanded. The BJP believes power should be extremely concentrated in this country, few people should run this country and the large mass of this country should have no voice...”

Comments: Just throw random lies!


Rahul: “...The Gujarat riots took place frankly because of the way our system is structured, because of the fact that people do not have a voice in the system. And what I want to do. And I have said it and I will say it again. What I want to do is question the fundamentals over here. What I want to do is ask a couple of questions. I want to ask why candidates that are chosen in every single party are chosen by a tiny number of people. I want to ask why women have to be scared to go out on the street. I want to ask these questions. These are fundamental questions...”

Comments: His party had been in power, and the mother-son duo had been running the government for a decade. What had they done? They must answer this question, rather than asking it!


Rahul: “I don't actually keep invoking my family name, I have mentioned my family name once or twice and then people report that. The real issue is that I didn't choose to be born in this family, I didn't sign up and say that I like to be born in this family it happened, so the choice in front of me is pretty simple I can either turn around and say okay I will just walk away from this thing and leave it alone or I can say I can try and improve something. Pretty much every single thing I have done in my political career has been to bring in youngsters , has been to open up, has been to democratise. I am absolutely against the concept of Dynasty, anybody who knows me knows that and understands that. But you are not going to wish away Dynasty in a closed system, you have to open the system. Dynasty or children of politicians becoming powerful happens in the BJP, it happens in the DMK, it happens in the SP, it happens in the Congress party, it happens everywhere.”

Arnab: “Then how are you different?”

Rahul: “You have to go into why it is happening.”

Arnab: “It is happening because dynasties are allowed to proliferate, it is because a Scindia's son is a minister, a Deora's son is a minister, a Pilot's son is a minister. A PM's son is the Congress VP that is dynasty. Change is not happening at the top, you want change at the bottom. There are people out there who are saying that we want change at the top.”

Rahul: “The reason children of politicians keep getting repositioned is because the system is closed. You are not going to change that without opening the system, you are not going to open the system without having processes, the system is not going to open by waving a wand and saying Abracadabra let us open the system. It is going to take time, it is going to take effort and it is going to take structure. That is the work that I do. That is the work I spent a whole bunch of my time doing that is the revolutionary work I have done in the IYC and the NSUI that is the work we are doing when we talk of an open manifesto. That is the work we are doing when we talk of 15 parliamentary seats being chosen.”

Comments: What to comment? Can’t blame Modi when he says Rahul is a namuna (a sample)!


Here are extracts from Rahul Gandhi’s Speech (drivel!) at CII on 4 April, 2014:
There is a tendency to look at India as a country. In our everyday life we see India as a national structure. But if you go back slightly more than that, go back a hundred, two hundred years, you would find that India is energy, it is a force. If you go back a thousand years, two thousand years, you would find that force came from our rivers, Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati. We worshiped these rivers and the reason we worshiped these rivers was because that is where our energy came from, and everything we had was built on these rivers. Now we have gone way beyond that. We have built structures that are allowing this energy to rise, to explode...”

“...Democracy and technology have triggered a non-reversible chain reaction in India. This reaction is unstoppable. Nobody can stop it. We have to channel this reaction. We need to nurture it. We need to make it harmonious. We need to make this happen smoothly. We need to use the energy generated by this movement of people and ideas, the force this movement is generating, and we need to use it to empower everybody. Not one person, not almost everybody, but everybody...”

Comments: Speechless! What can one comment on this verbal diarrhea!


A few more gems from Rahul Gandhi:
Yahan Hindustan mein hamara jaat ka concept hai. Is mein bhi escape velocity hoti hai. Dalit community ko is dharti pe Jupiter ki escape velocity chahiye. [In India we have caste. Dalits need Jupiter's escape velocity on Earth].”

Isiliye agar aap history ko dekhe, jo dalit log hai, hum sab hai, Ambedkarji ko bahut garv se dekhte hai. Wo pehle aadmi hain jo esape velocity kar ke US chale gaye [Ambedkar was the first to achieve escape velocity and go to the US].”

Jo leadership hai wo Mayawati ji ne capture kar liya hai aur doosre logon ko ubharne nahin deti. [Mayawati has captured the leadership and she does not allow others to emerge].”

Comments: What about Rahul and his Dynasty who never allow capable Congress leaders to emerge, lest they threaten their position! Rahul seems to be so dumb the irony of what he says doesn’t hit him.


Campaigning in Kerala in 2011 assembly elections, he commented on the advanced age of Achuthanandan to gain some political mileage, when Karunanidhi was in the same age bracket, and DMK was an ally of the Congress in Tamil Nadu, going to polls simultaneously with Kerala. Where was the application of mind? What does it tell about Rahul?'


Look at his so-called “mass” contacts. All these publicised contacts happen only in the opposition-ruled states, not in the Congress-rules ones, where the situation may be much worse.


His visit to Dalit homes; suddenly showing up at a tribal village in Orissa as their champion in Delhi; not doing or saying anything on Team Anna’s agitation since April 2011 or on Lokpal, and then suddenly, after many months of deafening public silence, pouring forth inanities in parliament, inter-mixed with Lokpal-like-Election-Commissioner comment lapped up by chamchas and media as “game-changer”; suddenly noticing the weaver’s conditions before elections—all demonstrate a transparent lack of any genuine concern, concern only with votes, and raise more questions than they answer. It is in crises that weaknesses are thrown up in sharp relief; and the Brand Rahul stood totally exposed in the Anna crisis, showing up all its inadequacies.


Rahul’s attempts to project himself as the messiah of the other India, to cultivate the rural Bharat, and show off himself as the protector of those who seemingly lost out on the reforms cannot fool anyone. It is the same old wine in the same old bottle—the hackneyed socialist rhetoric of his grand- mother, now imitated by his mother. A genuine leader cannot speak down at the people. He has to engage with them. He has to participate in debates. He has to address difficult issues. And he has to get his hands dirty and stick it out. He cannot suddenly emerge, say or do something, and then disappear. His is a cosy, cocooned political style.


Rahul has been vociferous about “Empowerment” of general public, of common man. Isn’t it ironic that the Dynasty that has unfairly concentrated most powers within it talks of empowering others! He also talks of empowerment in terms of laws: RTI, RTE, and so on (most of which the Congress was forced to pass, not that the Congress took the initiative). What matters is delivery on the ground. What’s the worth of laws that you can’t or don’t implement. First implement (what the Congress has miserably failed to implement in over five decades of its rule) the most basic of all sets of laws—that of “law and order”—that would ensure the most basic of rights to citizens—that of security and safety—then ventilate on grand schemes.


He is also seen lecturing small and big groups, including FICCI. If you hear him you feel baffled at his banalities, meanderings and generalities and lack of understanding, analysis and specifics, and wonder if he is so dumb as to be unconscious that others bear him out and don’t walk out only out of courtesy.

Any spectacular achievement of Sonia-Rahul-MMS-Congress government?
We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.

One spectacular achievement that the Sonia-Rahul-MMS government can be credited with is massively upping the scale of scams and corruption. Not the insignificant loose-change of a few lacs and crores. Even a 100-crore is viewed with contempt. Unless it is hundreds or thousands of crores, it is not in keeping with the high watermarks set by UPA-I and II. Mega scams like Adarsh, CWG, 2G, CoalGate, AugustaWestland and NavyGate are only those that have been highlighted by the CAG or the media. There must be so many others that have still not seen the light of the day. They can be done justice to only through a separate exclusive book. However, the extent and the spread, the amounts involved and the brazenness of the scams illustrate the depths to which the government, the politicians and the Babudom had fallen under the Sonia-Rahul-MMS dispension.

Here is a representative example to illustrate UPA’s "achievement". The Central Government advised the Supreme Court in an affidavit in July 2013 that the length of the national highways in 1980 was 29,000 km, which expanded to 77,000 km in  2012—an increase of 48,000 km in 32 years. Of this 48000 km, 24000 km (50%) were added during the 9th five-year plan of 1997-2002, when the NDA was in power—highest during any plan period since independence; and 16000 km during the 10-year UPA rule since 2004. That is, the UPA constructed only one-third that of the NDA in as much time. Rather than increasing the pace further, the laggards UPA slumped to one-third.

Wrote N Madhavan, KR Balasubramanyam and Anilesh Mahajan in an article ‘Paucity Amidst Plenty: Why a country flush with natural resources finds itself grappling with their shortage’ in the Business Today of 22 December 2013: “Billionaire Lakshmi Niwas Mittal has the uncanny ability to work successfully with governments of all kinds across the globe. That, and his unbridled ambition, have enabled him to set up or acquire steel factories in 20 countries. But the man who created the world's largest steel empire from scratch tasted the bitter fruit of failure when he decided to invest in his country of birth—India. In a bid to capitalise on India's huge iron ore deposits and rising steel consumption, Mittal in 2005 announced plans to set up a steel project in Jharkhand that year and in Orissa the next. Later, he proposed another mill in Karnataka. The total intended investment was $30 billion. In July this year, ArcelorMittal, Mittal's company, scrapped its $12-billion mill in Orissa after having failed to acquire land and iron ore mines for seven years. Its other projects have not yet been called off, but are also facing delays. Mittal's decision came just a day after South Korean steelmaker Posco, the world's fifth-largest, abandoned a $5.3-billion project in Karnataka for similar reasons. The two developments highlight how the Indian mining environment is scaring investors away. So, what is going wrong?...”

The callousness with which the Congress had been determinedly putting India’s prospects at risk was highly disconcerting. The UPA had been busy throttling the dynamism of the economy. The government had become a dismal farce, and had been only busy running the country into the ground.

The Congress talked of ‘inclusive growth’, but did not understand either the desirability or the demands of inclusive governance and federalism. Besides, how did ‘inclusive’ growth fit-in with UPA’s mega-scams that were cumulatively far larger than UPA’s designed-for-votes-and-corruption dole-outs like MGNREGA and FSB?

Can Rahul measure up as a PM?
Politics is perhaps the only profession for which
no preparation is thought necessary.
—Robert Louis Stevenson

He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything.
That points clearly to a political career.
—George Bernard Shaw, Major Barbara

If Rahul Gandhi is indeed honest and sincere, he must ask himself the following questions, and also share the answers with the general public. Does he realise that the Congress Party—the shape that it is in: full of chamchas; corrupt netas; ambitious, incompetent, arrogant ex-bureaucrats; self-seeking lawyers—is incapable of delivering goods for the country? What has he done for all these years—when he was not in the government, and has only been doing party work—to stem the rot? Is the Congress significantly better, and significantly less corrupt, as a body compared to what it was when he got involved with the Congress? In short, what has been his concrete contribution in terms of practical results on the ground? If he has utterly failed in this task, what hope is there that he would do better when in the government?

What is his track record? Has he headed a panchayat or a municipal corporation and achieved significant results? Has he worked as a junior or a senior minister in any state and done some work? Has he worked as a junior or a senior minister at the Centre and achieved results? Has he made a single speech that has impressed people? Has he given a single interview that has shown him to be sharp and intelligent? If he has done none of these, why should any reasonable person believe he can do anything worthwhile as the PM?

Is he aware how complex India is, how difficult are its problems, and how difficult is the job of a PM? What makes him feel he is experienced and qualified for the job? As a patriot, does he not think it would be disastrous for India to be managed by people not competent for the job? Would he ask an unskilled and inexperienced driver to drive him? All those who are promoting him to be the future PM must re-examine their act and re-evaluate it to make sure it is not inappropriate, irresponsible and unpatriotic.

When sycophants shout about his fitness to be the next prime minister, the Indian public has a right to know the basis of such claims. His views and comments have always been very simplistic, and show neither intellectual spark, nor wide reading, nor the ability to think deeply and analyse, nor experience, nor wisdom; and his leadership has not been proved in practice. So far, his track record has been less than mediocre. Congress would be doing a tremendous disservice to India by imposing him on the nation.

If you look at the sequence from the beginning to hopefully the end—Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Sonia and Rahul—you find a steep deterioration. Nehru himself did not measure up to what our first PM should have been—if you go by the facts, the concrete results of his reign, his many blunders whose consequences we are still suffering, and not the fiction trotted out by the fawners. However, his successors have been progressively worse. The general trend in most families, which are well-to-do and can afford education, is that each generation is better than the previous. Nehru dynasty is an exception. Each generation is worse than the previous: the degradation has been in descending geometric progression.

It is important to realise that managing a country as large and as complex as India requires deep knowledge of India's different regions and people, its politics, its administration, its economy, its culture, its history, its strengths, its weaknesses and its international relations; intelligence to absorb them, experience to manage, competence to deal with complexities, and wisdom to take right decisions. Do Rahul-Sonia-Priyanka measure up? Certainly not.

In the interest of the nation, an iron law should be laid down: First prove your leadership competence in a public or private or political organisation or an NGO; then as a minister in a state or at the Centre or as a chief minister of a state for at least five years; and then only a candidate should be allowed to put himself or herself up as a prime minister.

Of course, the Nehru Dynasty would never like to follow such a rule. They know they would badly flunk in the first two stages, depriving them a chance at the top slot. They want to fail only at the top-slot!

We study, analyse and implement risk-mitigation in all walks of life: finance, banking, management, software, health, transport, security and so on. Practically, no segment is left untouched by it. However, when it comes to the biggest risk of all—that of the position of the prime minister—we seem to be casual, rather criminally callous.

Aspects of Rahul that puzzle you!?
There are far too many aspects of Rahul that would puzzle anyone who has some expectations from him.

Why after over a decade in active politics, Rahul has so little to show for his political achievements, despite the massive unfair advantage he has been so unfairly equipped with? Why is he unable to articulate cogent, consistent reasoning for any of his stands? Why does he restrict himself to only a set of (apparently pre-coached) statements? With nothing to back them up! Why is he so casual with facts? Why does he often rely on sheer lies to make his point? Is it deliberate? Or, is he unaware of the actual facts? Over a decade in politics, and not a single wise or interesting or worthwhile remark or quote or statement from him! Is he really so dumb? Why Amethi and Raebareli continue to be so backward despite decades of association of the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty with them? Can a Dynasty which has failed even in Amethi-Raebareli deliver anything in a far larger and complex scenario of the nation? Does a Dynasty that was repeatedly granted a chance during the last six decades and that repeatedly failed the people after each chance deserve yet another? Do Rahul-Sonia-Congis deserve another chance even though the two chances of 2004 and 2009 to Sonia-Rahul have proved a betrayal; and the 2004-14 decade of Sonia-Rahul-MMS rule has been the worst in India’s post-independence history?

Baffling and mysterious ways of the Main Stream Media (MSM)!?
Granted, of course, that not much sense can be expected from a section of the MSM, who have been lapping up the nonsense spouted by Rahul, and have even been conducting debates on them during the prime time on TV channels, without having the spine to cross-question him on his lies, or educating the public on the same. Further, how can you give a wide berth to a fellow just for some sound bites when he has nothing to show for his actual work on the ground. How can you contrast a mere blabber who has never taken any responsibility as a minister or otherwise with a person like Modi who has handled a state as a chief minister for over a decade and made it a foremost state or who has been capably handling his job as a prime minister. But, strange are the ways of a section of the MSM!

Only a sold-out section of the MSM (Main Stream Media), the commentariat and the intellectuals may directly or indirectly or shamelessly promote him.  However, a reasonable person is not likely to have any expectations from Rahul of delivering anything worthwhile. Hence, none of his negative aspects—and there are many—would puzzle him. A reasonable, patriotic person having good of the country at his heart and an empathy for the poor would only hope that he and his dynasty disappear from India’s political scene.

* * * * *

Rajnikant Puranik
December 31, 2015