The importance of English in India

India is a country with 22 official languages in different regions. English though not the most spoken language of India is the most understood language of India. English is the only language you will see across the length and breadth of the country. English is the mainstay of our country --  the language of the government, public administration, the legislature, law courts etc. English is used in many fields more than any other language. If one has to survive in today’s competitive world one should have a good command in English.

• English is the third most spoken language in the world. Every third person can speak in English fluently. Most of the higher education books are printed in English. English is the unifying language. It acts both as a national and international link language.  
• For proper mental development it is essential that we study the best literature. If we want to shed the feeling of false superiority and to broaden our minds, we must take the best from others. Hindi serves as a lingua franca - adopted as a common spoken language by those with different native languages.
• Pandit Nehru said that "English is our major window on the modern world". It is only through English that we can establish social, economic, cultural and political relations with other countries of the world. 
• Dr. S. Radha Krishnan, Head of The University Education Commission remarked: “English be studied in high school and universities in order that we may keep in touch with the stream of ever growing knowledge. This would prevent our isolation from the world and help us to take advantage of the wider reach of the English language. English is a language which is rich in literature, humanistic, scientific and technical. If under sentimental urges we give up English, we would cut ourselves off from the living stream of ever-growing knowledge.” 
• English is the language of international politics, trade, commerce and industry. In the words of F.G. French, “By accidents of history and by the rapid spread of industrial development, science, technology, international trade, and by something like an explosion in the speed and ease of travel and by all the factors which have broken down frontiers and forced nations into closer inter-dependence, English has become a world language. It is the means of international communication; there is no other.”
• In parliamentary debates members speaking in powerful English are far more effective than members debating in Hindi and other Indian languages.
• On a global level, there has been an upward trend towards adopting English as the official language among companies and institutions and with this, it becomes imperative for individuals in India to embrace the language to order to compete in the job market.
• One out of 10 persons in the world knows English, 75% of the world's mail, 50% of the world's newspapers, over 50% of the world's radio station and more than 50% of the world's scientific and technical periodicals use English as medium of expression. 
• The corporate sector employs people who are confident and speak fluent English apart from the basic skills required for the job. If you desire a good and a well-paid job it’s very important to have a good command in English.
• Most of the technologies that are used in India are received from English nations so to use technology well, English is important. It is too tough for a person to be a specialist in any line unless he has a good command over English language.
• English must be studied as an important foreign language. It must also continue to be the medium of instruction, in science, technology, and in other subjects in higher classes. Knowing English is little about a foreign culture and all about your being part of every aspect of life as a modern person. At the same time, our national language Hindi & other regional languages should not be ignored.

People have understood the fact that good knowledge of English is the key factor for a good career, status in society and a huge advantage in knowledge and better communication in the entire world. If India has to progress then it cannot ignore the importance of the English language. David Graddol observed that throughout India, there is an extraordinary belief amongst all castes and classes, in both rural and urban areas, in the transformative power of English. English is seen not just as a useful skill, but as a symbol of a better life, a pathway out of poverty and oppression.  

English was the greatest gift of Goddess Saraswati to India - Rajaji

One language sets you in a corridor for life. 

Two languages open every door along the way - Frank Smith

English literature in quantity and quality is second to none - H Champion

Remember the old words from a teacher - When you go to USA as a student, to escape from paying fine talk in English, laugh in English, cry in English, etc... if not pay fine, every time you speak in something other than English.

Modi - India's divider in chief - TIME

Of the great democracies to fall to populism, India was the first. Advent of Modi is at once an inevitability and a calamity for India. The country offers a unique glimpse into both the validity and the fantasy of populism.

• This secularism was more than merely a separation between religion and state; in India, it means the equal treatment of all religions by the state, although to many of its critics some being more equal than others. 
• Indian Muslims were allowed to keep Shari’a-based family law, while Hindus were subject to the law of the land.
• Narendra Modi, the son of a tea seller, and his election was nothing short of a class revolt at the ballot box. It was no longer about left, or right, but something more fundamental.
• The nation’s most basic norms, such as the character of the Indian state, its founding fathers, the place of minorities and its institutions, from universities to corporate houses to the media, were shown to be severely distrusted. 
• The cherished achievements of independent India–secularism, liberalism, a free press–came to be seen in the eyes of many as part of a grand conspiracy in which a deracinated Hindu elite, in cahoots with minorities from the monotheistic faiths, such as Christianity and Islam, maintained its dominion over India’s Hindu majority.
• Modi attacked once unassailable founding fathers, such as Nehru, then sacred state ideologies, such as Nehruvian secularism and socialism; he spoke of a “Congress-free” India; he demonstrated no desire to foster brotherly feeling between Hindus and Muslims. Most of all, his ascension showed that beneath the surface of what the elite had believed was a liberal syncretic culture, India was indeed a cauldron of religious nationalism, anti-Muslim sentiment and deep-seated caste bigotry. 
• The country had a long history of politically instigated sectarian riots, most notably the killing of at least 2,733 Sikhs in the streets of Delhi after the 1984 assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. The Congress leadership, though hardly blameless, was able to separate itself from the actions of the mob. Modi, by his deafening silences after more recent atrocities, such as the killing of more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, in his home state of Gujarat in 2002, proved himself a friend of the mob. 
• Modi, without offering an alternative moral compass, rubbished the standards India had, and made all moral judgment seem subject to conditions of class and culture warfare. 
• When, in 2019, Modi tweets, “You know what is my crime for them? That a person born to a poor family is challenging their Sultunate [sic],” he is trying to resurrect the spirit of 2014, which was the spirit of revolution. 
• In 2014, Modi converted cultural anger into economic promise. He spoke of jobs and development. Taking a swipe at the socialist state, he famously said, “Government has no business being in business.”
• Not only has Modi’s economic miracle failed to materialize, he has also helped create an atmosphere of poisonous religious nationalism in India. One of his young party men put it baldly, “If you are with Modi, you are with India. If you are not with Modi, then you are strengthening anti-India forces.” 
• India’s Muslims, 14% of the population, have been subjected to episode after violent episode, in which Hindu mobs, often with the state’s tacit support, have carried out a series of public lynchings in the name of the holy cow. Hardly a month goes by without the nation watching yet another enraged Hindu mob falls upon a defenseless Muslim. The most enduring image of Modi’s tenure is the sight of Mohammad Naeem in a blood-soaked undershirt in 2017, begging the mob for his life before he is beaten to death. The response of leadership in every instance is the same: virtual silence. Basic norms and civility have been so completely vitiated that Modi can no longer control the direction of the violence. Once hatred has been sanctioned, it is not always easy to isolate its target, and what the BJP has discovered to its dismay is that the same people who are willing to attack Muslims are only too willing to attack lower-caste Hindus as well. 
• Under Modi minorities of every stripe–from liberals and lower castes to Muslims and Christians–have come under assault. Far from his promise of development for all, he has achieved a state in which Indians are increasingly obsessed with their differences. If in 2014 he was able to exploit difference in order to create a climate of hope, in 2019 he is asking people to stave off their desperation by living for their differences alone.

The incumbent Modi may win again–the opposition, led by Rahul Gandhi, an unteachable mediocrity and a descendant of Nehru, is in disarray–but Modi will never again represent the myriad dreams and aspirations of 2014. Then he was a messiah, ushering in a future too bright to behold, one part Hindu renaissance, one part South Korea’s economic program. Now he is merely a politician who has failed to deliver, seeking re-election. Whatever else might be said about the election, hope is off the menu. Modi is merely a politician who has failed to deliver, seeking re-election and what he might do to punish the world for his own failures, if he gets a second term? 

Read the source article

Why Modi built Sardar Patel statue?

  

The Statue of Unity, depicting Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, is being championed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but there is far more to the story of this expensive project. It was Dy PM Sardar Patel  who banned RSS in the aftermath of Gandhi's assasination said "the RSS was not involved... his assassination was welcomed by those of the RSS ...". Golwalkar repeatedly pleaded with Patel, but Patel remained firm. He lifted the ban only after the RSS pledged to stay away from politics, not be secretive and abjure violence and professed "loyalty to the Constitution of India and the National Flag". After removal of ban, RSS hoisted the flag at their headquarters on 26th January 1950. 

• The hope is that this monument to Patel will attract lakhs of tourists, but there is far more going on with this strange and expensive statue.
• The statue was a bold assertion of Gujarati nationalism as it was to give Narendra Modi a political lineage to distinguish him from the parent RSS, which sat out the freedom movement. 
• Why he didn’t build a statue of Guru Golwalkar or Deen Dayal Upadhyaya or V.D. Savarkar. Or even Subhash Chandra Bose, speaks volumes about his designs to snatch Patel's legacy from Congress.
• Patel is a historic Indian figure - crucial to the Indian independence movement and political organisation of postcolonial India. This on its own, though, does not exactly warrant building the ‘world’s tallest statue’ in his honor. Rather, it is the contemporary politics of Modi’s nationalist project and its model of development that explains Patel’s extraordinary memorialization. 
• During his term as Jawaharlal Nehru’s Deputy Prime Minister, Patel negotiated - through diplomatic tact underpinned by the threat of force - the incorporation of the 562 princely states of colonial India into the Union of India. This earned him a reputation as the “Iron man of India” and as the unifier of India.
• Today, the assertion of Indian unity has political meaning beyond the incorporation of the princely states into modern India. Within the Hindutva view of India, unity must be centred around Hinduism and India as a distinctly Hindu civilization.
• Modi’s statue project seeks to emphasise moving away from secular leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru. Patel’s reputation as an ‘Iron man’ and his willingness to use force to unify India is a counter to Nehru’s nonviolent foreign policy.
• The statue is connected to Modi and the BJP’s promise for development and investment. In Modi’s time Gujarat was known for authoritarian leadership, communal tensions, and largely jobless, GDP growth.
• Many believe that BJP has become aware of lack of faces among in the ranks in the list of freedom fighters and that the statue might be a gimmick ahead of elections.

There were so many iconic personalities of independence struggle but the reason why Modi selected Patel for 'Statue' is due to his Hindutva inclinations despite banning and RSS and professing secularism is due to his hatred towards Nehru and Congress and that Gujarati Patel would have become first PM in the absence of Nehru. What he ignores is Patel and Nehru - admiration they had for each other. Patel, in his reply to Nehru on August 3, 1947, wrote "Many thanks for your letter on the first instance. Our attachment and affection for each other and our comradeship for an unbroken period of nearly 30 years admit of no formalities. My services will be at your disposal. I hope for the rest of my life, you will have unquestioned loyalty and devotion from me in the cause for which no man in India has sacrificed as much as you have. Our combination is unbreakable and therein lies our strength. I thank you for the sentiments expressed in your letter." No matter what ever Modi does, Patel remains Congressman and his legacy belongs to Congress. Never to RSS who were hand in hand with British during pre-independence days.

I want India to be a happy country ... JRD Tata

JRD Tata (1904 - 1993)

JRD wished India to be a happy country before it becomes a great country and had conveyed his view to his friend and the country's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

JRD always believed that before one could excel in his chosen sphere, that person should be a good man. And a good man must have great credibility. He was always very sympathetic towards the needy, and there are umpteen anecdotes on how he helped families, particularly children. - JJ Irani

JRD's always aimed for excellence or even perfection. That drive was clearly reflected in his leadership of Air India. When JRD was its chairman, the carrier was recognized as one of the top three airlines in the world.

On the fire accident of March 3, 1989 that broke out during the Founder's Day programme inside Tata Steel plant, JRD was with Ratan Tata in Geneva but when he was informed about the unfortunate incident, he rushed back on March 5 (1989) and personally visited the victims undergoing medical treatment in TMH. JRD viewed the fire mishap as a personal loss and insisted on quality medical care to the victims regardless of the cost of the treatment.

On one occasion a senior executive of a Tata company tried to save on taxes. Before putting up that case, the chairman of the company took him to JRD. Mr. Vyas explained to JRD: "But sir, it is not illegal." JRD asked, softly: "Not illegal, yes. But is it right?" Mr. Vyas says that during his decades of professional work no one had ever asked him that question. Mr. Vyas later wrote in an article: "JRD would have been the most ardent supporter of the view expressed by Lord Denning: ``The avoidance of tax may be lawful, but it is not yet a virtue.'"

When JRD rang us in the office he would first ask: "Can you speak?" or "Do you have someone with you?" Except when he was agitated, he would never ask you: "Can you come up?" He was always polite.

Towards the end of his life he often said: "We don't smile enough." 

JRD said about his dealings with his colleagues: "With each man I have my own way. I am one who will make full allowance for a man's character and idiosyncrasies. You have to adapt yourself to their ways and deal accordingly and draw out the best in each man. At times it involves suppressing yourself. It is painful but necessary... To be a leader you have got to lead human beings with affection.''

In a speech in Madras in 1969 he called on the managements of industries located in rural or semi-urban areas to think of their less fortunate neighbours in the surrounding regions. "Let industry established in the countryside `adopt' the villages in its neighbourhood; let some of the time of its managers, its engineers, doctors and skilled specialists be spared to help and advise the people of the villages and to supervise new developments undertaken by cooperative effort between them and the company."

He never bent the system for his benefit. LK Jha recalled in 1986 that whenever JRD came to him when he was a Government Secretary, he came not on behalf of a company but the whole industry. He wanted no favours, only fairness.

He wrote in his Foreword in 1992: "I believe that the social responsibilities of our industrial enterprises should now extend, even beyond serving people, to the environment.''

When he was awarded the Bharat Ratna in 1992, Tata employees arranged a function on the lawns of the National Centre for Performing Arts in Mumbai. A gentle breeze was blowing from the Arabian Sea. When JRD rose to speak, he said: "An American economist has predicted that in the next century India will be an economic superpower. I don't want India to be an economic superpower. I want India to be a happy country.''

Read the source article

If I were to attribute any single reason to such success as I have achieved, 

I would say that success would not have been possible without a 

sustained belief that what I did or attempted to do would serve the needs and interests 

of our country and our people and that I was a trustee of such interests ... JRD Tata

The economy, which is a network of material relations, can always be revived, but the society, which is a network of human relations based on trust, may not be repaired so easily once damaged. The events of the past year can leave us without the slightest doubt that the sections who feel most threatened in India today are our Muslim and Christian compatriots. Historically, there have been other groups that have long felt marginalised.

Manmohan Singh is the biggest success in PM's office!

Statistics can often be stranger than fiction.

• How shall we define ‘political success’? By the fact of ‘re-election to the office’.
• The ‘biggest’ political success can be defined as re-election to office by the ‘largest increase in mandate’.

If a politician gets re-elected with the largest increase in his mandate, that should, incontrovertibly, allow him to claim the mantle of 'being the most successful'.

Who can claim to be India’s most successful prime minister?

1. Jawaharlal Nehru - Although he got re-elected more than once, he did not appreciably increase his (already awesome) mandate over his respective previous tenures.
2. Indira Gandhi - She got re-elected after she cut short her tenure in 1971, but added only 36% (from 259 in 1967 to 352 seats) to her previous mandate.
3. Atal Bihari Vajpayee - He got re-elected in 1999, but the BJP’s numbers in parliament hardly budged.
4. Manmohan Singh - He got re-elected in 2009 by increasing his previous mandate of 2004 by a gravity-defying 45% (from 141 to 206 seats).

Manmohan Singh, widely described as India’s weakest prime minister, but who, on cold quantitative statistics, can justifiably claim to be the biggest success in that office! 

The spectacular Lok Sabha polls of 2009

• Congress swept urban areas. (7 out of 7 in Delhi and 5 out the 5 it contested in Mumbai)
• With 21 seats, Congress was the second-largest party in Uttar Pradesh after SP(23) and ahead of BSP(20) and more than double of BJP’s tally of 10. 
• Both the contending alliances, UPA and BJP, had declared prime ministerial candidates – Manmohan Singh and LK Advani .
• The communists collapsed from 59 seats to 24.
• Obvious analyses for the Congress’ amazing re-election in 2009 was (i) the three continuous years of 9% -plus GDP growth, (ii) farm loan waiver just before the voting and (iii) people simply loved Manmohan Singh’s act of political defiance over the Indo-U.S. Nuclear Deal. They saw in him a status quo defying politician who could herald change on a massive scale.
• Very few understood, or cared, about the nuclear nuance. What they latched on to was Singh’s ability to stand up to blackmail in the pursuit of modernity and change.
• In July 2008 left coalition partners saw red over the Indo-U.S. Nuclear Agreement, and withdrew support in parliament, pushing the government into a minority. He sought a vote of confidence in parliament for his minority government. Some deft political management saw the Congress get new allies on board supported the government. When the vote was counted Singh had won 275-256. His beaming face and exultant V wave became Singh’s political signature for the 2009 polls; across the country, he was feted as ‘Singh is King’.
• Congress misread its mandate and harked back to the stasis of garibi hatao (poverty) politics, handing a neat walk-over to Narendra Modi in 2014, who instinctively understood the political message of 2009 better than the victors themselves.

We will vote you in, provided you can deliver real and discontinuous change to us. We were promised this in 2009, and again in 2014. But we were let down by both Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi. So for 2019, please go to your drawing boards and figure it out!

Read the source article

Modi, the worst PM

Deccan chronicle | Feb 9, 2018 | Page 10

• Modi forgot that he was in Parliament where he was duty bound to answer the questions / concerns raised by members unambiguously. 
• On an election rally, the diatribe against Congress would have sounded fit but in Parliament, Modi’s outbursts sounded awkward and outlandish. The intensity of the denunciation hinted at feeling threatened. This speech coming in the aftermath of BJP's Rajasthan bypolls humiliating defeats in the hands of Congress and such a litany of charges had the air of a litany of woes.
• Suddenly blaming Congress for partition of India sounded desperately anachronistic. Highlighting imaginations again and again leads him to nowhere and reflects only loss of sanity of mind.
• Dissing the Congress was country’s favourite spectator sport in 2014 but such a litany now, when the country is not impervious to the slings and arrows is vulgar.
• He forgot that, in 2014 elections BJP's vote share was just 31.00% against Congress party's 19.31% even though seats won was 282 & 44 respectively.
• He lacked sense to treat opposition leaders with respect and his pretenses that he is the only patriot and all others as traitors holds no water and is unacceptable nonsense.
• Talking bad about Gandhi, Nehru, Indira Gandhi etc and praising Sardar Patel, Ambedker  ... who are all dead long ago and most respected leaders in the world speaks very poorly about his education and character.
• Distorting history for political mileage is another worst aspect.
• He forgot that whole nation is watching live on TV and his histrionics are at their worst and BJP is bound to lose may votes in the forthcoming 2019 general elections. Elections can't be won projecting others in bad light, all the times.
• Above all, he has not answered any of the concerns expressed in parliament in gross violation of principles of democracy and constitution.
• With all round worst performance, there is no way he can win 2019 elections only on oratory skills and campaigning lies, abuses and arousing Hindutva passions. 
• Recent Gujarat assembly elections, Rajasthan & West Bengal bye poll results clearly indicates that people of India can't be fooled all the times.
• In no uncertain terms Modi as PM betrayed people of India by abdicating his duties, not being truthful, transparent and accountable apart from squandering away public funds on reckless adventures. 

A company's CEO while handing over gave charge to his successor gave two sealed envelopes to be opened only when facing crisis. After first crisis the CEO opened first envelope which read 'blame the predecessor' and that worked. After second crisis he opened second envelope which read 'prepare two envelopes'.

Modi doesn't know that Gandhi, Nehru & Patel were well in harmony. Gandhi chose Nehru as PM because he was young and popular with people of India where as Patel was old and having significant following in Congress. In addition Nehru had excellent relationship with Britain and many other countries and was truly secular where as Patel lagged these traits and has pro Hindutva inclinations and 19% of population of India are non-Hindus and their rights can't be undermined. And there is no reason to believe that Patel is taller than Nehru in any sense. Without doubt Nehru stands tallest among all the Congress leaders after Gandhi. Referring to past and belittling Nehru and his family at the fall of hat to gain political mileage and to cover his own failures works only one time but not after 4 years. Modi with worst performance as PM, not only made him self a laughing stock but effectively paved way for Rahul Gandhi to become PM in 2019, in just 4 years, which Sonia Gandhi couldn't achieve in 20 years.

With Modi’s latest speech, cartoonists have had the last laugh

Sadar Sarovar Dam: Incomplete but Modi inaugurates!

Amid protests and allegations of little work done on it, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, spent his 67th birthday on Sep 17, 2017, in his native Gujarat and dedicated the Sardar Sarovar Dam to the nation. Rehabilitation of the submergence-affected population is about 80% incomplete, but the Prime Minister declared the project complete! 

• The foundation stone of the Sardar Sarovar Dam was laid by former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on April 5, 1961.The Planning Commission finally approved the project in 1988. The construction on the project began 26 years later in 1987, when his grandson Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister. Sardar Sarovar Dam is the most controversial development project of the nation. 
• Sardar Sarovar Dam (1.2 km long dam is 163 metres deep) is the biggest dam in the world after the Grand Coulee Dam in the United States. The project aims to benefit about 10 lakh farmers.
• The Sardar Sarovar Dam has two power houses - river bed power house and canal head powerhouse. The two powerhouses have the installed capacity of 1,200 MW and 250 MW respectively. Power generated from the Sardar Sarovar Dam will be shared among Maharashtra 57%, Madhya Pradesh 27% and Gujarat 16%. The dam has so far produced 4,141 crore units of electricity, so far.
• Sardar Sarovar project was estimated to cost Rs.6,400 crores in 1988. The construction was backed by funds from the World Bank. Revised estimates in 1996-97 was Rs 13,000 crore. The present project cost is around Rs. 60,000 crore. 
• There is no credible assessment of the costs, benefits and impact of the project. Whether the project was boon or bane - reviews conducted once by World Bank and another by Govt of India and in both cases, the outcome was the project in its current form should not go ahead. That answer was available about 25 years ago.
• Sardar Sarovar Project is expected to supply drinking water to 29 million inhabitants across 131 towns and 9,633 villages in the state of Gujarat.
• The project is still incomplete with over 43,000 km of canals (out of total 70,000 km of canals) yet to be completed despite the BJP ruling the state for the last 22 years. All the incomplete canal network of the project are in the drought-prone areas of Kutch, Saurashtra and north Gujarat. The SSP’s basic objective is far from achieved. State government is guilty of criminal negligence for unilaterally reducing canals length from 90,000 kms to 70,000 kms without consulting Narmada Control Authority and truncating the benefits to state.
• Experts opined that if water tables were improved and electricity tariffs reduced, there was no need to build such a large dam. There were other options available. Neither Central Gujarat nor Ahmedabad were a priority for the Sardar Sarovar Project. Planned priority work is not happening.
• The celebrations for the completion of the dam are merely a poll plank. The CAG and Planning Commission had earlier pointed out that due to incomplete canal network, farmers are losing about Rs.1,800 crore every season.
• The Narmada Bachao Andolan led by activist Medha Patkar has claimed that after raising the height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, about 40,000 families in 192 villages in Madhya Pradesh will be displaced. The government has put the number of displaced families at 18,386 in Madhya Pradesh. 
• According to an estimate, more than 5 lakh families are battling displacement problems.
• The consistent struggle by social activists spearheaded by Medha Patkar on environment and rehabilitation issues to dismantle the project built a huge amount of pressure on the World Bank forced to review the project. On concluding the fact that inadequate assessment had been made by the Indian government, the World Bank cancelled the loan in 1993.
• The 150-km stretch of the Narmada downstream from the dam is now dry most of the year and the claim of 600 cusecs being released is not supported by any clinching evidence. The livelihood of at least 10,000 families depending on the Narmada estuary stands destroyed. 
• In the next assembly elections run up in 2018, BJP will have to answer several tough questions like reduction in canal length, incomplete canals in North Gujarat, Kutch & Saurashtra, illegal diversion of waters in canals, no additional acreage brought into cultivation during the past five years, delays resulting in huge cost over runs with no additional benefits and most importantly incomplete rehabilitation issues etc. 

Modi is expert in chest thumping few positive achievements and never touching any negative things or wrongdoings and manages media to sing to his tune. So far he was successful with his rhetoric, oratory skills and charisma. But he can't fool all the people all the times. He is bound to face music for his lies and misdeeds in Gujarat itself in 2018 and price nation has paid by then is enormous. While selective truth hammering is any politician's trait, but people expect absolute truth from Prime Minister's mouth and truth is the last thing Modi speaks. At the sight of telling lies to public, Prime Minister, Chief Minister & all Ministers must be disqualified from their positions, the rule book should be amended.

Dynasty runs every where in India

Dynasty runs every where in India in all walks of life -- politics, businesses, professions, and so on. This undermines merit, the essence of democracy. Royal titles having been abolished but Indians seem to not given up on the idea of dynastic rule. About 30% of the current MPs are dynasts.

• Whether it’s politics, businesses, or bollywood, Indians seem to have trust in their off springs, irrespective of whether they might be deserving or not. The stunning example is Rahul Gandhi.
• Dynasts are a widespread phenomenon in Asia. Singapore is effectively run by the Lee family. In China, sons and daughters of leading party members are known as 'red princes' because of the influence they wield. With the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, and the Bush family, America can't afford to sneer at Indian dynasts.
• Dynasticism works in modern political systems because it appeals to notions of inherited charisma that help legitimize leadership succession and minimize organisational division. In India, dynasts do seem able to hold parties together. 
• The Nehru-Gandhi family is the most prominent political dynasty in the country with four generations of the family having ruled the country. The Nehru-Gandhi family is the keystone of the Congress party. Take them out and the Congress party collapses. There are several dynasties across party lines all over the country. There seems nothing objectionable in political power passing from parent to progeny. In India dynasties are serving the needs of the present times while preserving democracy by providing a measure of stability.
• Even big business houses are quite often family-run enterprises. The Birlas, the Tatas and the Ambanis, three names that signify wealth and entrepreneurship for Indians, have passed on the baton from generation to generation, rarely allowing outsiders to head their conglomerates.
• One of Sonia Gandhi’s fiercest critics, Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray slammed her and her family for running a “fiefdom” and then went ahead and did exactly the same thing. In 2004, Thackeray declared his son, a political novice, as leader of Siva Sena.
• The Bollywood is dotted with “star kids” hoping that their children will continue to capture the imagination of audiences, lack of talent notwithstanding. Some have made it and some have fallen by the wayside.
• Governments run by 'the dynasty' doled out more subsidies, spent more and indebted the economy more than by non-dynastic governments. Subsidies create distortions in asset use, dampen individual incentives, promoted rampant corruption and resulted in retarded economic growth & development of nation.
• The communists and the Jan Sangh (BJP) were participants in Indian elections from the very beginning. Yet, in comparison to the Congress, they are far less dynastic.
• America which shouts loudest about democracy could be described as a plutocracy, such is the wealth required to enter the political fray as a major player there.

If you are not a communist at 20 you have problem with your heart and 

if you are not a capitalist by 40 you have problem with your brain ... Sudha Murthy

In a democracy it is the 'will' of the people which is supreme. Dynasty or non-dynasty is immaterial, as long as the candidate ascends to position based on the principle of the 'rule of the law'. There is no bar on dynastic descendant to participate in the process of elections. Most politicians forget that what ever sense or nonsense they do as per their whims is not necessarily in the interest of people nor has their approval. Therefore the processes must be transparent and followed at all times, discretion must be exercised rarely or never, accountability at all times, and financial matters must always have prior legislature approval. To ensure these, institutions must be strong and independent and must not be trampled with. Unfortunately that is not happening and opposite is prevailing. Social media cramped with BJP trolls are spreading untruths always pro-BJP and anti-Congress sentiments where as the fact is that both are as bad as each other. Today very few are bothered about worst state of economy, unemployment, distressed agriculture, perilous banking sector etc but are happily engaged in dirty politics and chest thumping for nothing with trophy projects or achievements. The kind of money spent each day on government advertisements for self aggrandizement -- a small town or 100 villages could be modernized every day.

Post Nehru, Congress governments rule resulted in rampant corruption and unmanageable subsidies and political landscape got filled with corruption money, musclemen and criminals. However, non congress governments headed by Morarji Desai and VP Singh did no better or even worse. Vajpayee did nothing except building highways & roads and could not control communal riots especially in Gujarat. Congress governments succeeding these non congress catastrophic governments provided much needed stability and economic recovery. Today, Modi government's 3+ year rule there is nothing to boast off except relentless publicity with economic parameters worse than where he started in 2014 despite very low oil prices. Failed demonetization, mangled GST hurriedly rolled out impacted economy greatly. With PSU banks on the verge of collapse with nearly Rs.10 lakh crores of NPAs economic recovery prior to 2019 is unlikely. 

Therefore, dynasty or non-dynasty is not an issue as long as it has people's mandate. Under Modi administration several state governments patronized by Modi's BJP don't have electoral mandate but are in power with manipulation of numbers. Matter of shame in the largest democracy.

Jammu & Kashmir: Instrument of Accession & Article 370

Jammu and Kashmir had a 77% Muslim population in 1947 and many people in Pakistan expected that Kashmir would join Pakistan. But J&K National Conference was secular and was allied with the Congress since the 1930s. So India too had expectations that Kashmir would join India. The Maharaja Hari Singh was faced with indecision. On Oct 22, 1947, rebellious citizens from the western districts of the State and Pushtoon tribesmen from the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan invaded the State, backed by Pakistan. The Maharaja initially fought back but appealed for assistance to the India, who agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on Oct 26, 1947 in return for military aid and assistance, which was accepted by the Governor General the next day with a gratuitous condition that after peace returned to the state, the people’s wish would be ascertained on the issue of accession. This was just a wish in view of the belated accession, not a precondition for accession.

• Maharaja Hari Singh sought urgent military aid on Oct 24, 1947, the cabinet had refused to send troops unless the Maharaja acceded. This was the idea of Governor-General Mountbatten, who chaired the Defence Committee of the Cabinet.
• At the Cabinet meeting on Oct 26, 1947, Nehru insisted that the accession must have the people’s backing. So, Sheikh Adbullah sent in a quickly scribbled note on behalf of the National Conference. He was sitting in the next room, having brought his family down to Delhi.
  Sheikh Abdullah was an Indian politician who played a central role in the politics of Jammu and Kashmir. The self-styled "Sher-e-Kashmir" (Lion of Kashmir), Abdullah was the founding leader of the National Conference. He agitated against the rule of the Maharaja Hari Singh and urged self-rule for Kashmir.
• On the morning of Oct 27, 1947, Dakotas flew the Sikh regiment to Srinagar. The place was in limbo, the Maharaja having left Srinagar for Jammu in a long convoy at 2 am on the night of Oct 25,1947, a few hours after signing the Instrument of Accession (IoA).
• The Instruments of Accession were cyclostyled documents — the one signed by Raja Hari Singh was no different from the one signed by other princes. So the document executed by Raja Hari Singh was just another Instrument of Accession with no special concessions or reservations.
• The dramatic events of that day have left a legacy of divergent narratives. Each seems unreasonable to the other. That of course is a recipe for deadlock and increased resentment. A common impression among many Kashmiris is that the army’s arrival on this day that year was a temporary measure, meant only to save Kashmiris from the tribesmen.
• The real differences are that this one was conditional (only for defence, external relations and communication), and this Maharaja did not follow up with an instrument of merger. That means that the state of Jammu and Kashmir continues to have a legal standing. 
  On the eve of India and Pakistan becoming separate dominions, rajas and maharajas of British India were given three options: become part of India, become a part of Pakistan or remain independent states. Within the specified period — between August 15 and October 6, 1947 — 560-plus erstwhile rulers signed documents with the title “Instrument of Accession”, and thereby agreed to become part of the dominion of India. This was to be followed by instruments of merger, thereby becoming part of India and ending the original identity of the princely state — many princes executed both the documents one after the other, while some had hesitation to sign the merger treaty.
• The merger of J&K with India should have taken place before October end. But Nehru's complaint to the UNO and its intervention, prevented it. The merger had to be postponed until the dispute was settled — and that dispute is still pending.
• At the insistence of Nehru, Article 370, according special status to J&K, was added at the fag end of the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly. While B.R. Ambedkar opposed the idea and refused to take part in drafting Article 370, the other members of the Constituent Assembly condescended to this “gift from Nehru to his friend Sheikh Abdullah” in the firm belief that this was a temporary measure.
• Regarding Article 370, most Kashmiris insist that 370 is a permanent part of India’s constitution, the hinge upon which the state’s relationship with the Union is based.
• The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir establishes the framework of government at state level in Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The present constitution was adopted on Nov 17, 1956, and came into effect on Jan 26, 1957. 
• The state’s constitution clearly states that it is an integral part of India. Union Home Minister GB Pant used that term for the first time in Parliament in 1958, soon after the state’s constitution took effect on 26 January that year. Once the state’s constitution was in place, it dictated how much control the Union would have.
• Sheikh Abdullah was the Prime Minister of the state of Jammu and Kashmir after its accession to India in 1947 and was later jailed and exiled. He was dismissed from the position of Prime Ministership on Aug 8, 1953 and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was appointed as the new Prime Minister. The expressions ‘Sadar-i-Riyasat’ and ‘Prime Minister’ were replaced with the terms ‘Governor’ and ‘Chief Minister’ in 1965. Sheikh Abdullah again became the Chief Minister of the state following the 1974 Indira-Sheikh accord.
• RSS activists tend to confuse it with Jana Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mookerji’s ek nishan, ek vidhan, ek pradhan campaign of 1952-53. Mookerji’s campaign was specifically against the New Delhi agreement of 1952, negotiated by committees headed by Maulana Azad on behalf of the Union and Sheikh Abdullah on behalf of the state. And that agreement was in the same bracket as Article 370. It was meant to determine this particularly prickly Centre-state relationship until the state’s constitution was ready.
  Jana Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mookerji was Nehru's cabinet minister which finalized Article 370.
• As long as the fundamental difference in perspective exits, one can go round and round in circles arguing about each of the above points whether one wants to interpret all that happened as meant to pave the way for Kashmir’s inclusion in India, or as meant to open doors that might lead to its independence is a matter of time.

J&K part of India ... Dr. Karan Singh

The state had acceded to India and not merged with it and that it why it has its 
own separate constitution and special status ... Dr. Karan Singh S/o Maharaja Hari Singh

Long after Modi government is a distant memory, either J&K won’t be part of India 

or Article 370 will still exist ... Omar Abdullah, ex CM, J&K 

(Even though it is height of ignorance & audacity, undercurrents are real)

Today Kashmir valley has over 96% Muslims. Post 1947 events have diluted the natural order of Kashmir becoming part of Pakistan mainly due to its incursions. Even Muslim people of Kashmir valley face dilemma - while they feel alienated and want to secede from India, they are not sure to get better treatment in Pakistan and being a land locked hill state with population of less than 10 million can't survive as an independent nation. In the meantime, Kashimris are suffering with militancy and terrorism and is deprived of development which the whole world is enjoying. What India should do is to try to win the co-operation of the Kashmiri people and politicians and MPs from the rest of India to suitably amend and attenuate Article 370 instead of repealing it. Hopefully, Kashmiri people would forgot Article 370 with political engagement and development, in due course of time.

Parliamentary processes diminished

• What is our conception of Prime Minister Modi when he called parliament “the temple of democracy”? Is it merely a place to ratify decisions made elsewhere in party cabals or cabinet meetings? Or is it a chamber where the representatives of the Indian people assemble to express their considered opinions and thoughtful disagreements, before coming to an outcome in the interests not of a party but of the country as a whole? I guess for Modi it is the former.
• In parliament, the Government will propose. The opposition will oppose. If matters come to a head and a vote is called, the Government’s brute majority will dispose. Merits of the matter hardly matters. This is how our parliament works these days.
• Parliamentary debates have become a ritual. On most issues whip is cracked and MP's duly vote on party lines.
• Even sensible suggestions by the opposition are never adopted.
• With overwhelming majority the Government simply chooses not to listen.
• The Anti-Defection law was passed with good intentions and with which the road to hell is paved. It was intended to stop the aaya Ram-gaya Ram practice of legislators crossing the floor in pursuit of power and pelf. The idea was noble, and rested on sound principles: governmental stability matters; people must stay loyal to the party on whose platform they contested; the intent of voters must not be betrayed by defections.
• The Anti-Defection law 1985 enabled a practice of party whips on all issues, making receptivity to the ideas of the other side punishable with expulsion from the House. The ‘argumentative Indian’ is on display only when he is arguing strictly according to his party’s position.
• The Anti-Defection law has not eliminated the defections, but dramatically reduced them. It only made defections a group affair, more costlier and at the mercy of Speaker, without fear of legal scrutiny.
• Parliament is supposed to be a forum where individual MPs of ability and integrity met to discuss common problems and agree upon solutions.
• MP's are supposed to advocate the wishes of their constituents, rather than themselves. MP betrays himself and his voters while surrendering his own better judgement to the dictates of his party leadership. This is a travesty of the parliamentary process.
• In the UK no whip was issued on a vote for Brexit. No whip was issued for UK supporting the US in the Iraq war. Dissent was freely and honestly expressed on both sides of the aisle. Such freedom is unknown to the Indian MP with the Anti-Defection Law.
• Government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination. And what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide.
• Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, where not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good of the nation. 
• In the early days a prime minister could even be challenged by MPs from his own party -- think of Nehru being attacked by Feroze Gandhi, Finance Minister TT Krishnamachari being forced to resign by his own backbenchers, or Mahadev Mishra challenging his Prime Minister’s China policy. Today conformity rules the roost. So why give parliament an importance its performance does not warrant?
• The first three Lok Sabhas saw as many as 140 days sittings a year. We are now at about half that number, and it is reducing every year. BJP Government clearly has very little time for the distractions of Parliament. State assemblies are even worse: many sit for fewer than 30 days a year, and in Haryana the average is 12 days.
• In the last Lok Sabha, 25% of the bills were passed with scarcely any discussion. Barely 15% of the Union budget is discussed in detail. Our government is spending taxpayers’ money without the taxpayers’ representatives having a meaningful say in how it is spent. 
• Once bills are passed they become Acts, and these are implemented through the promulgation of rules drafted by the Government and are supposed to be placed on the table of each House. The rules are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Guess how many rules have been discussed in the current Lok Sabha? Precisely zero.
• Our Prime Minister Modi spoke of introducing ‘minimum government, maximum governance’. Instead, we are heading to a system of ‘minimum parliament, maximum government’. The judiciary is stepping into the breach, taking initiatives that should have been done by Parliament. Unelected judges substituting themselves for the people’s representatives. It’s nobody’s fault but our own, but it’s not the democracy.
• It is time to look at our institutions and ask if they are really providing the foundations on which our democratic freedoms must be built. The crisis assailing our legislative representation in Parliament makes this task imperative and urgent.

Beware of ministers who can do nothing without money, 

and those who want to do everything with money

Thrift should be the guiding principle

It is essential that a democracy must function with transparency & accountability and rule of the law must be followed. No expenditure should be allowed without prior approval of parliament or legislature except while dealing with specified emergencies. Ordinances must be discouraged and must be subjected to detailed scrutiny. No Act shall be passed without detailed discussion and rules framed for implementation must be ratified or modified by Parliament or Assembly with in 60 days. Discretion must be eliminated and replaced with well defined processes. Executive decisions must have either cabinet and/or legislature ratification. Projects must be granted by a 'Planning Commission' or 'Niti Aayog' type expert bodies but never by any individual office bearer. Government must focus more on Governance rather than money matters. Nothing should be done unless it benefits larger masses. Extravagance should be despised. 

India's Freedom & Liberalisation

• India was at a crossroads 70 years ago when it made choices that were enshrined in the constitution, so that its workers and peasants were freed from class and caste oppression.
• Nehru said at the midnight when India woke up to freedom. “To bring freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to fight and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic and progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman.”
• The zamindars and landlords finding that open defense of landlord's interest was no longer feasible, switched over to communalism for their class defense.
• Pakistan's falsity of religion-based nationalism and a state was founded on theocracy. It was one area where the Hindu right-wing emulates its sworn enemy and India was sought to be converted into a theocratic state called Hindu Rashtra. 
• M.S. Golwalkar, RSS supreme leader for more than 30 years minced no words: “The non-Hindu peoples in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture…. In one word, they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less no preferential treatment—not even citizen’s rights.”
• It is no accident that the Hindutva forces had nothing to do with anti-colonial struggle and independence. Infact, the RSS chief M.S. Golwalkar had so little sympathy for the anti-colonial struggle that he thought that the British would have to be invited back shortly after Independence in order to govern India. Today they laud Ambedkar today for sheer opportunistic reasons.
• The first major victim of this narrow cultural nationalism of the Indian right-wing was the Father of the Nation. After being driven to the margins of Indian politics in the wake of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, the right wing RSS and its latest political incarnation, the BJP, is at the helm of India, now.
• The slide started post-Nehru and was complete in 1991, when the Congress went back on its promises and ushered in the neoliberal order. The Congress ceased the cause of workers and peasants ostensibly called national interest, but in reality for the material prosperity of the merchants and manufacturers. Now with the BJP unburdened by the legacy of any egalitarian struggle, the free people of India are under the onslaught of neoliberalism and rabid communalism.
• Ambedkar argued that the political equality, guaranteed by the constitution, would get jeopardised if there was no corresponding movement towards social and economic equality. The first setback to independent India's was its inability to carry out any significant land redistribution. The top 15 per cent of landowners continued to hold the same percentage of land area as before. Dalits, the landless class, who had been denied the right to own land under the old system continued to remain landless and therefore both socially and economically disempowered. By the end of the 1950s, Jawaharlal Nehru was worried about growing wealth and income inequality in the country, he has to set up the Mahalanobis Committee to inquire into it.
• The per capita annual foodgrain availability, which had been around 200 kgs at the beginning of the 20th century in “British India” declined to 148.5 kgs during the 1939-44 and even lower to 136.8 kgs in 1945-46, was pushed up close to 180 kgs by the end of the 1980's. It has since declined, over the neoliberal period, reaching 163 kg for the years 2012-14.
• The spontaneity of capitalism was breaking the bounds set by state control. And soon it was to jettison the institute a regime of neoliberalism, under which the domestic corporate-financial oligarchy got closely integrated with globalised finance capital.
• The economic travails of the dirigiste regime arising from the sluggish growth of the home market owing to growing economic inequality, its loss of social support among the people for the same reason, and the big bourgeoisie’s wish to break out of it has contributed towards effecting a transition from dirigisme to neoliberalism.
• Neoliberalism greatly accentuated the increase in economic inequality, though it accelerated the growth rate in the tertiary sector. The acceleration in growth rate was resolved through larger exports of services, larger elite consumption of luxury goods, and the effects of asset price bubbles. The top 1 per cent of households in India currently owns 60 per cent of the country’s total wealth puts India with the fastest increases in asset inequality.
• The process of primitive accumulation of taking over of peasant's land 'for a song' for corporate projects and squeezing the peasants through higher input prices, by withdrawing subsidies and the drying up of institutional credit, but without commensurably higher output prices. These output prices, especially of commercial crops are allowed to fluctuate widely with world market prices. Even phenomena like Demonetisation and the GST are also mechanisms for imposing primitive accumulation upon the petty production sector. 
• A tragic consequence of this primitive accumulation at the expense of peasant agriculture has been the suicides of over three lakh peasants over the last two decades. And large numbers of peasants have left agriculture and migrated to cities in search of jobs, which are not being created to an adequate extent despite the apparently high GDP growth. The net result has been a proliferation of casual employment, intermittent employment, part-time employment and disguised unemployment. The growth in the casualisation of employment and privatisation of public sector units have weakened trade unions. While capital is international, workers are still organised along national lines, making national unions ineffective.
• The middle-class segment that has done well out of globalisation, owing to the outsourcing of services from the metropolis, and owing to the rise in the share of surplus which supports a range of activities from finance to advertising, has expectedly belonged to the upper castes which have been privileged enough to acquire the skills to make use of the opportunities that have been opening up. Since these beneficiaries attribute their own success not to their privilege but to their talent, the inevitable conclusion is drawn that those who are excluded from such jobs are untalented. An impression spreads that children from the oppressed castes do not make it because they lack talent, which boosts casteist prejudice.
• Development in India started on a wrong foot by eschewing land redistribution and the pursuit of capitalist development contributed to growing socio-economic inequality, that got a free run under neoliberalism. The adherents of Hindutva in power this social counter-revolution is being carried forward with a vengeance. India is not a fascist state, but the growing socio-economic inequality is destroying the constitutional provision of political equality.
• Fascism arises when the system besieged by crisis is challenged by a threat from the revolutionary forces whom fascism is used for eliminating. Fascism grows when the system is at a dead end and when the working-class movement is not in a position to mount a challenge. That is when large sections of the people flock to fascist movements, not because it provides a credible way out, but because it projects a messiah, it resorts to flamboyant but meaningless rhetoric, it appeals to unreason, and it holds not the system but the “other” (the Jews or the Muslims or whatever) as responsible for the travails of the people.
• It may seem intriguing that neoliberalism has reached a dead end, Modi promises even greater neoliberal reforms while a Trump rails against neoliberalism. But this contrast between two current manifestations of fascism arises because neither has a coherent programme anyway for overcoming the crisis and the frustration gripping the people. Both are essentially purveyors of unreason for whom the economic agenda as a thought-out rational programme is incidental.
• The corporate-financial oligarchy adopts the fascist movement, finances the fascist movement, and promotes the fascist movement, which exists independently of it. Fascism provides “stability” and also an ideal ideological prop for neoliberal capitalism. Fascists in government represent, in the Indian context, an alliance between corporate capital and Hindutva. The fact that capital is globalised while the state remains a nation state entails that even a fascist nation state must abide by the wishes of globalised capital (to prevent capital flight) and this fact restricts its ability to overcome the crisis.
• At peril are the gains and achievements made by the movements for national independence, socialism and social justice. India is once again is at crossroads where the choices it made 70 years ago are being undermined.

The left and democratic forces can have an alternative agenda that promotes equality, that strengthens democracy, and is willing to withdraw from the neoliberal regime. They should for instance have an agenda of introducing a set of universal, justiciable economic rights, to supplement the political rights that the constitution guarantees. These can include the right to food, the right to employment, the right to publicly-funded free and universal quality health care, the right to publicly funded free and universal quality education up to a certain level, and a right to adequate old-age pension and disability benefits. The implementation of these rights together would cost less than 10 per cent of the GDP annually, which the country can easily afford. 

There comes a time in the life of every nation when it stands at the 

crossroads of history and must choose which way to go ... Lal Bahadur Shastri

Globalization benefits just minuscule percent of population to prosper, who are rich, educated and with access to power & resources. Trickle-down theory that says benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else is unacceptable nonsense. In a large populous country like India, where most people are illiterate & poor, governments ignoring their welfare and chasing money making machines is nothing but abuse of principles of democracy and Constitution of India. Globalization is a concept propounded by developed & educated western countries to expand their reach for marketing their products and services rather than extending helping hand for upliftment of suffering masses in the world. India blindly embracing it for monetary gains, is not only height of insanity but also detrimental to its large segments of population. Development is not facilitating educated and/or rich people to prosper but enhancement of living standards of all classes of people simultaneously.

Hindu Raj: Ambedkar’s warning

• Proponents of Hindu supremacy knew that democracy could be used to establish a Hindu Raj. They and their followers have sought to use the vote for ends of power using the Hindutva card.
• If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.… Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost - wrote B.R. Ambedkar in 1946. He was against majoritarianism, which in the Indian context meant unbridled rule of the majority community, the Hindus.
• Unfortunately for the minorities in India, Indian nationalism has developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the Majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism, while the monopolising of the whole power by the majority is called nationalism. Under these circumstances there is no way left but to have the rights of the Scheduled Castes embodied in the Constitution. 
• In the forties, even Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was sometimes accused of being soft on the Hindu Revanchists, who believe in and practised tit-for-tat in that turbulent and fateful period.
• Patel’s retort to BM Birla on announcement of Independence: “I also feel happy that the announcement of June 3, 1947 at least settles things one way or the other. There is no further uncertainty. I do not think it will be possible to consider Hindustan as a Hindu state with Hinduism as the state religion. We must not forget that there are other minorities whose protection is our primary responsibility. The state must exist for all, irrespective of caste or creed.”
• Ambedkar was perceptive. It is not necessary to declare India a Hindu state formally by amending the Constitution and making Hinduism the state religion. The same result can be achieved by administrative measures. The Supreme Court has held secularism to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution which cannot be discarded even by constitutional amendment.
• Ambedkar thought that the elaborate constitutional provisions on administration would work. He told the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948, when he moved for the adoption of the Draft Constitution: “While everybody recognises the necessity of the diffusion of constitutional morality for the peaceful working of a democratic Constitution, there are two things interconnected with it which are not, unfortunately, generally recognised. One is that the form of administration has a close connection with the form of the Constitution. The form of the administration must be appropriate to and in the same sense as the form of the Constitution. The other is that it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution, without changing its form, by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. Can we presume such a diffusion of constitutional morality? Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic”.
• The leaders of the Congress sought to inculcate secularism right from the first Congress held at Bombay in 1885. S. Srinivasa Aiyangar, president of the 41st Congress in 1926, articulated the credo of secularism very ably. So did Vallabhbhai Patel in the presidential address to the 45th Congress at Karachi in 1931. Hindu-Muslim “unity can only come when the majority takes courage in both hands and is prepared to change places with the minority. That would be the highest wisdom.”
• But by then, forces that did not share the Congress’ ideology, did not participate in the freedom movement and were charged with revivalist hate had come to the fore.
• Nehru once remarked that Hindu communalism was the Indian version of fascism, and, in the case of the RSS, it is not difficult to perceive certain similarities. The leader principle, the stress on militarism, the doctrine of racial-cultural superiority, ultra-nationalism infused with religious idealism, the use of symbols of past greatness, the emphasis on national solidarity, the exclusion of religious or ethnic minorities from the nation-concept—all of these features of the RSS are highly reminiscent of fascist movements in Europe.
• With an RSS pracharak, Narendra Modi, known for his antipathy towards Muslims, as Prime Minister, and Yogi Adityanath chosen by him as Chief Minister of India’s largest State, Uttar Pradesh, we have crossed the threshold to a Hindu state. The BJP’s presidential candidate, Ram Nath Kovind, is “deeply rooted in the ideological stream of the RSS”. A brand new rubber stamp has been manufactured for the Rashtrapati Bhavan, 25 years after the last rubber stamp, R. Venkataraman.
• We now have a Prime Minister whose Hindutva puts Vajpayee’s Hindutva in the shade. Lynchings of Muslims has become common. So are cries for a Hindu state. Yogi Adityanath said on the Hindu Swaraj Diwas that no Indian should be hesitant about being proud of his or her Hindu identity.
• The drive will pick up speed. Modi made blatantly communal speeches during the Uttar Pradesh election campaign, as 65 former civil servants recalled in their open letter. He will do worse for the Lok Sabha elections in 2019. He aims to claim that he has fulfilled the BJP’s triple demand. His Kashmir adventure had “solved” the problem. For a uniform civil code, no other Prime Minister has so relentlessly campaigned for a reform of Muslim law. As far as the Ram temple at Ayodhya is concerned, he will say: “have patience, I have crossed the threshold to a Hindu state in India. Can’t you see the dread on the faces of Muslims, Christians, Dalits and other minorities?

My View:
Democracy in its true spirit is rule by people. Among all models, the model of rule by majority is the most popular and probably the best. That doesn't mean that minorities can be thrashed out by majority. Rule of the law must prevail. This Hindutva philosophy will only lead to civil war, sooner or later. In a democracy, ruled by majority, it is the duty of majority to uphold the rights & dignity of minorities. Polarization of people on the lines of religion, caste or creed - is not democracy. It is only a distortion and perversion. In a society corrupted with religious extremism all constitutional provisions and laws of the land will not work properly and the country will be heading for anarchy. When constitution fails, it is mafia that rules and then nation will be heading for disintegration!

Israel is only a 'strategic partner'

• Modi must be aware, that in becoming the first Indian prime minister to visit Israel he was merely correcting a historical wrong. Israel is not our 'natural ally'. At best it could be our 'strategic partner'. See below the difference.

Natural allies are normally 'birds of the same feather', while strategic partners are often ‘strange bedfellows’. Natural allies share common political and cultural values—they may share common historical and cultural traditions; their societal values may be more or less similar; they may practice the same religion; and so on. Strategic partners may share none of these similarities. What makes two countries either natural allies or strategic partners is the common security challenge that they both face at a particular juncture in history and more importantly their decision to come together and pool their resources to deal with this challenge.

• David Ben Gurion, the founder of Israel, held a deep, resilient respect for India. He was fascinated by the India's ancient civilization, its inclusive culture, sought its friendship and recognition. He convinced Einstein to write the letter to Nehru, to carry the burden of the unrequited relationship. 
• Nehru rejected Israel's hand of friendship and cooperation, since he felt he couldn't afford to antagonize the Arabs given India's large Muslim population who had chosen to remain instead of migrating to Pakistan. And yet for all of India's efforts the Arab nations did not come to India's aid even once during its wars and conflicts. Israel did. 
• India recognized Israel in 1950 but without diplomatic relations.
• In 1968, when India established Research & Analysis Wing, then prime minister Indira Gandhi reached out to Israel's Mossad – to help train the fledgling service.
• Leave alone support, India has been betrayed by the Arab nations on Pakistan and Kashmir repeatedly. Be it the 1962 conflict with China, wars against Pakistan in 1965, 1971 and 1999 as well as during sanctions against India after nuclear tests, Israel has been the only nation to stand by us.
• Not withstanding our ties with Arab world, they had always supported Pakistan in backing Kashmir's "movement for self-determination".
• Modi’s “closeness” to Israel has blinded him to the report’s finding that 2,251 Palestinians were killed, over 1,600 wounded and some 5,00,000 displaced by the ruthless Israeli bombing of Gaza. The report says while Hamas did not use Palestinians as “human shields”, the Israelis did so using Palestinian children. 
• Today, Israel has so much to offer us apart from countering terrorist menace, in fields of water conservation, irrigation, innovations in agriculture, space technology, cyber-security, research and development in the fields of science, informational technology, startups, trade, commerce and defense collaboration.
• India's Israel policy has so far been unfair, myopic, perverted and hypocritical. This was a much-needed course-correction. However, a small country of 8.2 million can't be a model for a country with 1.3 billion with ethic and cultural diversity.
• Human right violations of Israel in Gaza and west Bank might become a head ache for India, which is so far a principled supporter of Palestine cause.
• It took one phone call from the Israeli prime minister for India to abandon seven decades of carefully cultivated relations with the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians in particular. This is a region which is host to nearly seven million Indian expatriate workers, whose remittances constitute the largest contribution to our foreign exchange earnings. It is also the region on which we depend for energy. In one fell blow, Modi has degraded us from being the best friend of the Arab world to its most doubtful supporter.
• If not handled deftly, our burgeoning relationship with Israel may be construed negatively by the Islamic nations.
• Finally 'strategic partnership' should be aimed at deriving mutual benefits without compromising the existing multilateral deep rooted relationships.
• Modi had earlier visited Israel in 2006 when he was the Chief Minister of Gujarat. 

Palestine belongs to the Arabs as England belongs to the English 
and France to the French .. Mahatma Gandhi
If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first ... Shimon Peres

My View:

Making Israel as strategic partner and deriving benefits in upgrading defense and strike capabilities apart from improving know how which benefits the areas of agriculture, irrigation, security, trade and commerce etc is OK but it is all the more important to maintain equally good relationships with Islamic Nations in view of our long association despite hiccups, dependency on Arab nations for oil, millions of Indians employed in Gulf and billions of dollars they repatriate which helps us manage our trade deficits. Otherwise Modi will end up India deriving small benefits and bring our country face to face with gigantic issues. Foreign policy requires consistent principled behavior and farsightedness, which Modi lacks.