Modi govt’s firm stand at WTO

Modi govt’s firm stand at WTO is a departure from UPA’s decade long weakness
By G Pramod Kumar

Can Modi hold out against pressure from US and EU? Reuters image


Narendra Modi government’s continued stand at the WTO that India’s food security is as important as the Western nation’s desperate desire to get the Trade Facilitation Protocol passed is an emphatic departure from the multilateral and bilateral trade policies pursued by the Manmohan Singh government during the last ten years.

The new approach is reciprocal and strong, while the UPA had tended to capitulate under international pressure.

Through this bold decision, in which the the July 31 deadline for the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) has lapsed, India has told the US and the EU that its primary concern is its hungry poor and not their goodwill. Without agreeing to safeguarding their food interests, India cannot agree to a treaty aimed at maximising (mostly) rich countries’ exports.

For the first time in the last ten years, India has also told the world that when it comes to national interests, it doesn’t care for what is considered good manners in the international forums. Indirectly, it has also told the world that it doesn’t stand by the weak position of its predecessor, the UPA, which had agreed for the TFA without negotiating hard for a “single undertaking” – taking decisions on both the issues together.

When the UPA government had agreed for the TFA in Bali during the last round of negotiations, it was in lieu of a proposed agreement on its food security requirements. The US, EU and other developed countries had opposed India’s food subsidy programmes if they exceeded 10 per cent of the total agricultural production, the limit permitted under the WTO (World Trade Organisation) rules.

The WTO Agreement on Agricultural (AoA) subsidies allows only 10 percent (of production) subsidy for most of the developing countries. Rich countries argued that the Food Security Bill exceeds this 10 percent and therefore it would “distort” international trade. Using the AoA, they picked on India’s stock holding of food grains, minimum support prices to farmers and other subsidies while overlooking the fact that they dole out billions of dollars as indirect subsidies in their respective countries.

In hindsight, it’s clear that the UPA government shouldn’t have wilted under pressure at the WTO and should have bargained hard. If there was no agreement for a “single undertaking”, it should have docked the TFA. Instead, it allowed for cherry picking by the US and the EU, which became a source of international pressure and bad international press. It’s clear now that had the UPA taken a firm stand, things could have been favourable to India.

India’s current strong position appears to have led to some softening of stand by the US. On Thursday, American secretary of state John Kerry said that he understood India’s concerns about its food security requirements. He also expressed hope that the Bali package would address them. This is a stated departure from the position of the block of countries led by the US and EU earlier. In all its dealings towards the TF protocol, they had been dismissive of the food security requirements of India.

The US had earlier said that “we are extremely discouraged that a small handful of Members in this organization (WTO) are ready to walk away from their commitments at Bali, to kill the Bali agreement, to kill the power of that good faith and goodwill we all shared, to flip the lights in this building back to dark”.

While countries such as the US cry foul of a “missed deadline” because of India’s firm stand, experts point to the fact that the history of WTO is dotted with a number of deadlines. Chakravarthy Raghavan, editor emeritus of South-North Development Monitor, said that “if the deadline for the TF protocol is missed, it will be one of a long line of ‘missed deadlines’ from the inception of the WTO on 1 January 1995: those mandated by Ministerial Conferences and thus ‘Ministerial political commitments’, and those missed in terms of legally binding mandated deadlines set by the Marrakech Treaty.”

“Many of these missed deadlines and unfulfilled obligations are central to the demands of developing countries and the fulfilment of the development mandate under the Doha negotiations, and a vast majority of missed deadlines is because of the US and developed countries withholding consensus,” he adds.

India therefore shouldn’t worry about another missed deadline. What’s important is its sovereign right over its domestic policies for the welfare of its people.

 by G Pramod Kumar


The threat to our pre-schoolers from the worst of Bollywood is far greater than the threat to Sanskrit

The threat to our pre-schoolers from the worst of Bollywood is far greater than the threat to Sanskrit from German.
Illustration: Uttam Ghosh/

Illustration: Uttam Ghosh/

A friend who went to his daughter’s pre-school for a cultural programme came back worried.

He could not reconcile to the idea that three year olds were gyrating to raunchy Bollywood numbers meant to titillate adults. This, at one of the best schools in the western suburbs of Mumbai, which is also the heart of the entertainment industry.

His concern was based on the fact that he seemed to be the only parent around who found this disturbing and unacceptable.

He is wrong.

Even as Bollywood’s dominance over the collective consciousness of the country is absolute, there are parents, caregivers, child counsellors and sociologists who find the idea of exposing impressionable and unsuspecting toddlers to a culture that is meant for adult consumption disturbing. And that is why schools need to exercise caution, to be more discerning.

A child dancing to Chikni Chameli or Bang! Bang! may get a lot of likes or hits on social media, but is that all that a parent should aspire to?

Is that all that a school, the first point of contact for a toddler with our world of structured thinking and learning, could think of by way of introducing them to creativity?

Should we not encourage children to write their own songs and create their own movements, rather than ape stars paid to entertain adults?

It is important to put things into perspective while we spend hours debating the utility of a classical language in the school curriculum, or the feasibility of continuing with German.

The threat to our pre-schoolers from (the worst of) Bollywood is far greater than the threat to Sanskrit from German.

A three year old dressed up in a miniature version of an adult costume designed to seduce and titillate, simulating movements that include pelvic thrusts, boob shakes or rubbing a towel against their private parts while lip-synching to lyrics that are replete with sexual innuendos and expletives, is aesthetically, morally and ethically wrong.

It cannot be the first and best education that we can give to our children, even if the stars they are emulating are popular simply by virtue of being rich, famous and Botox beautiful.

It does not tick your boxes of Bharatiya Sanskriti either, does it, Ms Smriti Irani?

Bollywood is an industry and should be treated as simply that. It generates employment for thousands and has been successfully branded as our biggest export after Kamasutra, Yoga, Gandhi, Ravi Shankar and the sitar.

Growing up in India today, it is not possible to pretend Bollywood does not exist, unless you are the proverbial ostrich. But it can wait. There is a wealth of art, literature, music, folklore to be discovered before biting the Bollywood dust.

A school skit need not be an imitation of a masala film. The school can easily introduce young minds to Indian or international playwrights and street plays. It can help them discover the joy of reading and adapting works by gifted writers (in regional languages as well. Why not?)

A school choir can sing songs written by our indigenous composers that are more about stars in the skies than about those who bat their made-up eyes from the screens.

But then, it is much easier for a school struggling with a lop-sided student-teacher ratio to get a child to dance to a catchy Badtameez Dil than introduce them to Gulzar’s Jungle Jungle Pata Chala Hai from the first dubbed version of Jungle Book for the small screen. Isn’t it?

Unfortunately Ms Irani, we have created a world where a child needs to be far more aware of the difference between ‘right touch and wrong touch’ than the difference between six packs and eight packs on stars who often get booked for inappropriate behaviour in public, or confess to anger issues, or alcoholism among other things.

There will come a point when our kids will aspire to be a filmmaker, an actor or a writer.

Learning the craft for any discipline should be encouraged. But that comes much later in life.

For a child, who knows no better, it is not easy to understand that he may be sending out the wrong signals to the pervert in the audience, maybe seated next to his parents, as he takes off his shirt like his favourite matinee idol (who is facing trial for a hit-and-run case among other legal issues) and prances around on stage. Or a little girl who dresses up like Alia Bhatt and pouts and preens as she sashays down the ramp.

Every week, there are reports of toddlers being sexually assaulted in schools.

When young girls get assaulted on their way to work or home, you blame the way they dress or carry themselves. But what do you have to say to the schools where we send our children with the hope and the belief that it is the safest haven for them outside of their homes?

I am not suggesting that Bollywood should be blamed of sexual misconduct in school premises.

Cinema is a powerful medium. It can be used to educate and entertain, instruct and inspire. Some of the most popular stories and characters we grew up with have been immortalised on screen.

But Bollywood has repeatedly failed its youngest fans. Its concerns with encouraging crassness to make good its investments has eclipsed its obligation or the creative need to tell stories for children that are not about heists, con men or seductresses with murder on their minds.

If there is a chance to keep our children away from a sexually charged and commercially driven adult culture for a few years, why not do it?

As a mother, Ms Irani, and a woman sensitive to the issues that affect women and the girl child in particular, I am sure you will understand what I am trying to say here.

Yes, you too are a by-product of the industry and there is nothing wrong with it.

I have nothing against six packs or against Alia Bhatt.

But, instead of wasting your valuable time dealing with issues of language, should you not be enforcing a system that makes it mandatory for schools to keep Bollywood away from education and the learning system for the first years of a child’s life?

A smart kid would know who Sunny Leone is anyway. But why introduce him/her to the idea of a porn star-gone-good when he/she should be learning to make paper boats and learning the names of the constellations in the night sky?

A toddler’s mother

A toddler’s mother

Gandhi-Nehru soft power not sole reason behind freedom

Gandhi-Nehru soft power not sole reason behind freedom

Date: 17 November 2014

Maj Gen G.D. Bakshi (Retd)

15th Nov 2014

[In strictly historical terms, Subhas Bose emerges as primarily responsible for Indian independence, even more perhaps than Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru.]

Nation states are constructed around a core of seminal ideas and values. They need a national narrative to sustain themselves and serve as a basis for their collective identity that defines who they are and what they stand for. This national narrative is usually based upon the historical path of evolution of that state.

       The national narrative that the Indian state evolved for itself at the time of its independence, averred that unlike all other Westphalian states that are based upon a monopoly of violence and hard power, the Indian state was unique and exceptional.

It was not based upon hard power, but on the soft power concepts of ahimsa, non-violence, soul force etc.

This is how it claimed it had won its freedom — not by any exercise of hard power or violence, but by non-violent persuasion and peaceful agitations.

This national narrative was based upon a falsehood that went against the facts of our recent history.

The 125th birth anniversary of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru is an apt occasion for such historical reflection. Nehru’s seminal contribution to India was to make it a viable and functioning democracy.

However, Nehru was a disaster as far as national security is concerned.

It is also vital to understand how the creed of pacifism came to disable the Indian polity.

Before Gandhi came from South Africa, the Congress party was largely an effete, debating society. The Congress asked for home rule and dominion status and sought strenuously to remain on the right side of the colonial regime by trumpeting their loyalty to the King-Emperor.

However, the upsurge of nationalism in India became very strong, especially after the First World War, when over a million Indian soldiers came back from the battlefields in Europe, Middle East and Africa.

It was these demobilised soldiers who spread the nascent idea of nationalism in India and especially the Punjab from where a large segment of the soldiery had come.

The Indians expected gratitude for their participation in the war.

            What they got in 1919 was Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

A far more militant response came thereafter in terms of the Ghadar movement of Indian revolutionaries.

Gandhi was an astute judge of the Indian scenario. He gave a mass base and populist impetus to the Congress programmes and mobilised the rural masses.

Mahatma Gandhi, however, was shrewd enough to understand the unpreparedness of the highly fragmented Indian population for an armed struggle to overthrow British colonial rule.

      Hence, he tried to make a virtue of necessity by insisting on a non-violent freedom movement based on the psychological tools of satyagraha, fasts, moral pressure and the values of ahimsa or non-violence, designed not to cross the thresholds of tolerance of the colonial power.

Frankly, it is now evident from hindsight that the British tacitly encouraged this non-violent, persuasive form of protest because they were convinced that it was not going to basically endanger their colonial rule.

The extensive press coverage given to Mahatma Gandhi and his non-violent freedom movement based on peaceful demonstrations, fasts and dharnas, was designed to release the pent up energy of popular dissatisfaction with colonial rule, but at the same time, prevent it from turning very violent.

That violence would have endangered the colonial dispensation.

Non-violence did not, and hence it was tolerated.

So even while the Congress tom-tommed its nationalist credentials and abhorrence for colonial rule, they openly admired the British system and were in turn seen by the colonial masters as “Brown Sahibs” and closet anglophiles in a nationalist disguise — who the British tried to exploit as very convenient tools for the perpetuation of the Raj.

They acted as a safety valve for the popular sentiments and prevented the outbreak of large scale violence in India.

Otherwise, the British found this effete and ersatz form of nationalism very convenient and entirely manageable.

The only Indian in the National Congress, who could challenge the overriding authority of the Mahatma, was Subhas Chandra Bose.

He was a realist.

He clearly foresaw that non-violence was absolutely within the tolerance thresholds of the colonial regime.

This could mount media and psychological pressure but never of an order which would really compel the British to leave.

Bose opposed the Mahatma Gandhi strategy of peaceful protest alone.

He became the Congress president despite Gandhi’s opposition. However, the astute Mahatma ensured that Bose did not serve a second term as Congress president.

The Bose thesis was realist and simple.

World War II had started in 1939. 2.5 million Indian soldiers had voluntarily joined the British Indian Army to fight Britain’s wars in Europe, North Africa, Italy and in Burma. The entire Burma theatre was manned by the Indian forces of the empire.

Bose emerges as the most remarkable personality of India’s freedom struggle.

He dared to oppose Mahatma Gandhi’s grand strategy and was marginalised politically. However, he now broke ranks and single-handedly put his ideas into action with emphatic and momentous results.

The key to the colonial control of its empire was the British Indian Army.

The British colonial success hinged upon their ability to “nativise” this Army.

Over 80% of this colonial Army consisted of Indian peasant soldiers, who remained staunchly loyal to the Raj because of the oath of fidelity they had taken to the King-Emperor.

The British organised them in ethnicity/sub-nationality based regiments, focused upon a narrow manpower base in distinct geographical areas of India.

They celebrated and highlighted these distinct local military traditions to evoke fierce regimental/clan loyalties.

Good British officer leadership at the junior and middle levels did the rest and helped to forge good combat units that served as an efficient and infallible instrument of colonial control.

Bose was crystal clear that the key to Indian Independence lay in turning the loyalty of the Indian sepoys of the British Indian Army.

He was absolutely certain that without this native backbone, colonial rule could not last a day.

It was the true centre of gravity of the Indian freedom struggle.

In the classical Kautilyan tradition, Bose decided that an enemy’s enemy is a logical ally.

India must seek the help of Germany and Japan for its fight against the British.

Only then would the fight be effective and stand any chance of success.

Mahatma Gandhi felt this was morally repugnant.

In fact, the Quit India movement launched by him had completely petered out by 1944.

The Japanese meanwhile were causing a major upheaval in Asia. After the conquest of most of China and Korea, Japan now turned its attention to the British and other European colonies in South East Asia. It attacked and captured the Philippines Islands and captured Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. It then invaded Burma and reached the borders of British India. Now, it trained its sights on the brightest jewel in the British Crown.

It is was here that the Japanese Army felt the need for Bose, who alone, they felt, could tilt the scales by arousing the 2.5 million men of the British Indian Army against their colonial masters.

Bose had staged a miraculous escape to Germany where he had raised the 3,000 men strong Indian League.

The Japanese, therefore, asked the Germans to send Bose.

He undertook a perilous submarine voyage and reached Japan. In Japan, Bose met Gen Tojo and other Japanese leaders.

He assumed command of the Indian National Army (INA). He formed the provisional government of Azad Hind in exile at Singapore and declared war against Great Britain.

      He went far beyond the prisoner of war pool with the Japanese Army and appealed to the vast Indian diaspora in South East Asia.

     He evoked a massive response in terms of recruitment and financial and gold donations to fund the freedom struggle. He expanded this rudimentary force to an impressive size of some 1,500 officers and 60,000 men. This force was organised into three combat divisions. Two of these were to take part in the fighting in Burma and the historic invasion of Imphal-Kohima. The third garrisoned Malaya and later had a contingent in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

A recent poll by the National Army Museum in London, in fact, has described the Imphal-Kohima battle as the most decisive battle of British Military history.

It was “greatest” in terms of its political, social and cultural impact. Some 24,000 men of the INA were killed in the operations in Burma — hardly a non-violent struggle.

Far more important than the immediate impact of a decisive operational defeat for the Japanese-INA combined forces was its aftershock that shook the loyalties of 2.5 million Indian soldiers who were being demobilised at the end of the war.

By then, the INA story had leaked out. There were large scale mutinies in the Royal Indian Navy and in the British Indian Army. Some 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and over 20,000 sailors of the Royal Indian Navy were involved.

The spectre of armed revolts amongst 2.5 million Indian soldiers being demobilized, shook the British Empire to its roots.

There were hardly 40,000 British troops in India then.

Such a massive revolt meant the end of the British Empire in India. The war weary British saw the writing on the wall and decided to leave.

Indian freedom had not come from non-violence but from the very real spectre of large scale revolt and armed violence.

Frankly, in strictly historical terms, Bose emerges as primarily responsible for Indian independence — even more perhaps than Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru.

This is borne out by the testimony of the-then British Prime Minister Clement Attlee.

[ COMMENT : Please see below ]

Despite this, to fight the ghost of the INA and its legendary founder, Nehru created the contrived myth about how soft power alone had single handedly got India its freedom. He actually believed his own myth and this led him to virtually despise the military and he did his best to emasculate it.

As a trained lawyer, he had great faith in his oratory to move the UN and other international bodies. This new legal paradigm, he felt, would rule the discourse between nations and the use of force would be eliminated. Hence, his soft power alone would suffice and India needed no standing armed forces, only police forces.

The J&K war in 1947-48 and the Hyderabad operations made it impossible for him to have his way and realists like Vallabhbhai Patel were able to dissuade him.

After Patel’s demise, Nehru’s pathological dislike for the army came to the fore, especially after the military coup in Pakistan.

He set about emasculating the military leadership, starving the military of resources and set in train the tragic events that would bring about the humiliation of 1962.

He could not live it down and died a broken man.

Fortunately, his successors, especially his daughter, turned realist with a vengeance and saved the Republic.



From: Satish Chandra Gupta  –;

I tend to agree with Dear Colonel RPSINGH’s above analysis as I have also been thinking on the same lines for quite some time , rather that owing to Gandhi’s Ineffective non-violence movements had pushed behind  our Independence by at least FIFTY years.

Gandhi Had used his popularity In various irrelevant Non-violence movements & for causes to appease the Muslims in particular as he lacked Courage against Muslims , like his “KHILAFAT MOVEMENT ” when Kamal Pasha  of Turkey had abolished all the KHILAFATES in Turkey  but because Muslims had launched the movement,  Gandhi supported it  ; again he totally bowed down to the Muslims between 1930 to 1937  when our & world’s GREATEST MOST PATRIOTIC NATIONAL SONG , Namely , “VANDE MATARAM ” was not sung from Congress platforms  till Congress had agreed To sing its 1st Stanza only in 1937( as was desired by the Muslims ) , which Formed the basis of our Loving Country’s Partition later in 1947.

And there are so many other examples showing the  UNPARDONABLE  BLUNDERS OF GANDHI, for example ,   as in 1931, during the Round Table Conference, He did Not ask Lord Irwin for the release of our Armed Forces Soldiers who were undergoing Rigrous Imprisonment in Peshawar jails then  , stating  Conveniently that he was against Discipline in our armed Forces and quickly slipped away from the back door of the Battersea Hall Conference in London, in 1931  which he had himself called ; this was reported by a renowned  Leader as an eye -witness in his auto-biography . 

Thus , I have Not at all any respect for Gandhi .

Our Shri Narendra Modi has certain POLITICAL COMPULSIONS TO USE HIS NAME , that’s all.  One should try to understand it in larger perspective  with a long term view .


982 05 876 09.




When B.P. Chakravarti was acting as Governor of West Bengal, Lord Attlee visited India and stayed as his guest for three days at the Raj Bhavan.

Chakravarti asked Attlee about the real grounds for granting independence to India.

Specifically, his question was, when the Quit India movement lay in ruins years before 1947 where was the need for the British to leave in such a hurry.

Attlee’s response is most illuminating and important for history. Here is the Governor’s account of what Attlee told him:

In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important were the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundation of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government.

Towards the end, I asked Lord Attlee about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhi’s activities.

On hearing this question Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, putting emphasis on each single letter – “mi-ni-mal.” (Emphasis added.)


“Bal Chaudhari” <>

One of the myths, which his successors and blind supporters keep selling to the

public is that he was a Great Democratic Leader.

This is absolutely false.

He accepted the partition of the country without any refrendum. He imposed article 370 in Kashmir resulting in Hindus being

deprived of their rights as State Subjects.

He imposed Hindu Code Bill, but allowed Muslims to have their Personal Law. 

He was arrogant and in the matter of  BERU BARI transfer to Bangladesh, when challenged in the Court,

he threatened to amend the Constitution to do as he wished, (This dangerous precedent was copied by his

grandson Rajiv in the case of Shah Bano alimony).



Jawaharlal Nehru – Busting Myths!

From: Ganji, Shobhan  –;

Nehru is a blot to India. A selfish leader who wanted to split Khangress if he was denied prime minister position.


From: Achuta Ramaiah  –;

mohan ji that was good. in our school time we were told Nehru was god almost and we worshiped him like wise !. in fact if he had implemented Hindi right after 1950 as the official language we two would not fight English vs Hindi !! . jai haind


From: Sri Hari Hosmane  –;

Monday, November 17, 2014

Thanks for bringing the truth of the great JLN And thanks to you that you have brought this in English. If not no south Indians would have understood head or tail of it. I am aged around 75 years and fully agree with you. In spite my age my blood still boils the moment I think of him. If JLN were to have fore thought of our country, till his death our country did not any other models of passenger cars other than ……….fiat and  ambassador. Then great companies like HAL, HMT, ITI, BEL were all nationalized . What is their fiat to-day. If our country people still bank on that family, God Almighty alone should help our country.


From: Jay Kumar  –;

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

An eye opening article. Thanks a million for letting the world know especially people of India the truth about this disgraceful family.

They should be imprisoned for life for all the crimes they committed and looting the wealth of the nation.

10 janpath should be vacated and turn into a museum or someplace useful for general public and Renamed

“NETA JI BHAWAN” in memory of Subhash Chandra Bose


Posted By: Col R.P.Singh <>

How transformation taking place at Indian Embassies

Sun Nov 23, 2014 12:39 am (PST) . Posted by:

“VHP INT’L HQs DELHI(Goutam Chatterjee”

From: Naveen Gupta
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:44 PM
To: …
Subject: RE: Swachch Bharat vs The Transformation – An Experience

Swatch Bharat campaign is joked off most of the time.
After sixty years of a dynastic rule a change.
Now let me tell you a recent Incidence (no story). I was travelling from Canberra to Sydney by train. At a small station there was a change of the engine driver which took a minute. The relived driver walked down the platform and came across an empty coke can on the side under a bench. He picked it up and put it in the bin nearby and moved on as usual. I thought to myself, would it happen in India. Why not?

On a more serious note, now let me tell you my experience I had at the Indian consulate in Sydney yesterday. I had gone there for the life certificate. I was amazed at seeing the transformation in that office since my last visit:
a.. The man at the reception asked me even before I could say anything ‘sir have you come for the life certificate'. I said ‘Yes’. He asked me to give him the documents, take coffee and have a seat
b.. Some guys were already sitting and some kept coming. After some time, the councillor came out (I was told later that he comes out every half hour), called out the names, made them sign the certificate, signed it himself and handed it over. I was off in half an hour when the web site says it will take one day

c.. As though this was not enough, there was an old Anglo Indian pensioner from Railways – William D Fransis on a wheelchair accompanied by his grand-daughter. Frail and unable to speak. The consular saw him and asked for his form first. With the form in hand, he went to him and said ‘Sir from next year onwards, please do not come here for this certificate. Just go to your treating GP (Doctor), he will sign this certificate. After that please post it to us along with a photo copy of your passport. You will get it back in a day and if you desire we will also send it to your paying office
d.. All pensioners present were amazed at the transformation. As though in unison, they all said ‘I am going for Modi’s public appearance next week’
Being a bit curious, I stayed on and started asking the receptionist about this noticeable transformation. He told me the following:

a.. We have to send to MEA, a monthly report highlighting the problems faced by visitors to the consulate and what actions have been taken to remove or reduce them? This is the result of that
b.. I asked him to tell me a few other improvements. He started off with a whole list. Let me tell you one of them. They have started a new emergency service. Say after office hours one learns that one’s father has passed away. You SMS your visa request on a given number. If the officer on duty considers it to be an emergency request, he will call you back and speak to you and in all probability for such a case give you a visa the moment you are able to reach him with your passport. I remember my son’s tears when he pleaded for a visa to get home after my wife’s death. While the Indian embassy tried its best to delay it, his Australian boss in Canberra had to intervene. My eyes are flowing with tears as I remember it while trying to bring this transformation to you. Only one thing has changed since then in the consulate – the PM. The same building the same staff
c.. I left the consulate with my chest high – 56 inches
Guys, this is a National Opportunity for us to redeem and rediscover ourselves. Let us contribute in the effort and not derail it. The least we can do is to have patience. Things are happening
Please do pass on this First Hand Account of Transformation to those who may not be knowing and to the media which will never publish such good deeds of the man. From my side, I sent an immediate e mail to the PMO with a copy to the Consular and the Ambassador

Best Regards


Motilal pushed for son Jawahar as Congress chief in letter to Bapu

Motilal pushed for son Jawahar as Congress chief in letter to Bapu


Motilal pushed for son Jawahar as Congress chief in letter to Bapu
Today India is celebrating 125th birth anniversary of its first PM Jawaharlal Nehru. (Photo: Getty Images)
AHMEDABAD: Eighty-six years ago, in July 1928, the Congress party was wrestling over who should lead the party: whether its reins should be handed over to young, energetic leaders, or the old guards should be allowed to retain control. One of Congress stalwarts at that time, Motilal Nehru, wrote a rare letter to Mahatma Gandhi saying although Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was the best choice for the post of Congress president, the party should now be handed over to young leaders of “Jawahar’s type”.

In December the same year, the Congress had elected Motilal as its president during the Calcutta session. Jawaharlal was elected the following year in 1929 as the party president at the Lahore Congress.

The issue gained momentum on June 19, 1928, when the Mahatma wrote a letter to Motilal from Sabarmati Ashram, “Sen Gupta writes to me saying that I should move the Gujarat Provincial Congress Committee to vote for you (Motilal) as the president of the coming Congress.”

Gandhi further wrote: “Perhaps it is not yet time for Jawahar to occupy the throne. And if the Committee that you are managing brings up something substantial it would be as well for you to wear the crown. Sen Gupta suggests Malviyaji as an alternative.”

In reply to this letter, Motilal wrote to Gandhi on July 11, 1928, “I am clear that the hero of the hour is Vallabhbhai and the least we can do to appreciate his public services is to offer him the crown. Failing him I think that under all the circumstances Jawahar would be the next best choice.”

Further down, Motilal writes, “Our race is fast dying out and the struggle will sooner or later have to be continued by men of Jawahar’s type. The sooner they begin the better.”

(Jawaharlal Nehru with Mahatma Gandhi. Getty Images)

Historian Rizwan Kadri, who acquired this letter from Motilal Nehru’s papers at Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, said, “Motilalji believed that the party should be led by young turks. He writes in this letter how it was time that the more energetic and determined workers should have their own way of guiding the political activities of the country. He further states how there was no reason why people like him and Gandhiji and other senior leaders should continue to force their views on the young of the party.”

Jawaharlal Nehru as a child with his father Motilal Nehru and mother Swarup Rani Nehru. (Photo by Getty Images)