WHY BHARATHAM NEEDS PM Narendra Damodardas Modi? BECAUSE AT PRESENT THERE IS NONE MORE ELIGIBLE AND CAPABLE PERSON IN OUR POLITICS, THIS IS THE TRUTH; LET US REFRESH OUR MEMORY, WE GET THE ANSWER : Gandhiji chose Nehru over Patel because of THREE main reasons: 1. Gandhiji believed a foreign educated Nehru with modern thoughts had an edge over Patel who, according to him, was orthodox in his thoughts. 2. Gandhiji feared Nehru would revolt in case he was denied PM’s post and that would give the British an excuse to delay transfer of power. 3. On the other hand, he was fully convinced of Sardar Patel’s loyalty. He knew Sardar Patel was a true patriot and would never play a spoilsport. THE LESSON : 1. History has proved it beyond doubt that had Patel been the PM in place of Nehru, the country would not have faced the humiliation of 1962 war. 2. Days before his death, Patel had written a letter to Nehru warning him about China’s nefarious designs but Nehru didn’t pay any attention to that letter. 3. Even Kashmir would not have become a thorn in the flesh for India, had Patel and not Nehru been the first prime minister of India.
Opinion
31/05/2018
1256
Sub :-
WHY BHARATHAM NEEDS PM Narendra Damodardas Modi?
BECAUSE AT PRESENT THERE IS NONE MORE ELIGIBLE AND CAPABLE PERSON IN OUR POLITICS, THIS IS THE TRUTH; LET US REFRESH OUR MEMORY, WE GET THE ANSWER : -
Gandhiji chose Nehru over Patel because of THREE main reasons:
1. Gandhi believed a foreign educated Nehru with modern thoughts had an edge over Patel who, according to him, was orthodox in his thoughts.
2. Gandhiji feared Nehru would revolt in case he was denied PM’s post and that would give the British an excuse to delay transfer of power.
3. On the other hand, he was fully convinced of Sardar Patel’s loyalty. He knew Sardar Patel was a true patriot and would never play a spoilsport.
THE LESSON : 1. History has proved it beyond doubt that had Patel been the PM in place of Nehru, the country would not have faced the humiliation of 1962 war.
2. Days before his death, Patel had written a letter to Nehru warning him about China’s nefarious designs but Nehru didn’t pay any attention to that letter.
3. Even Kashmir would not have become a thorn in the flesh for India, had Patel and not Nehru been the first prime minister of India.
Ref :-
All oppostion parties are in a hurry to dislodge PM MODIJI, if not now, in the 2019 Loksabha polls, ALL CROOKED, ANTINATIONAL, SINGLE PERSON OR FAMILY OWNED REGIONAL PARTIES, ALL CORRUPT, ONE WAY OR OTHER CRIMINALS, DIVISIE FORCES VIOLENTLY CHALLANGING TO DEFEAT BJP AND MODIJI,
REQUEST CITIZENS OF THIS HOLY NATION AWAKE! AWAKE !! AWAKE !!!.
LOOK BACK TO THE HISTORY:-
Why was Jawaharlal Nehru selected as the first Prime Minister of India instead of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The answer to this question is not that simple. But a closer analysis of Gandhiji’s approach towards Patel and Nehru throws light over a few facts that can decipher the mystery.
1.
There is no denying the fact that Gandhiji had a ‘soft corner’ for Nehru since the beginning and he had preferred Nehru over Sardar Patel at least twice before 1946 for the post of Congress president. It happened in 1929 as well as in 1937.
2.
Gandhiji was always impressed with the modern outlook of Nehru. In comparison to Nehru, Sardar Patel was a little orthodox and Gandhi thought India needed a person who was modern in his approach.
3.
But more than anything, Gandhiji always knew that Sardar Patel would never defy him. He was not so convinced about Nehru. Gandhiji’s apprehensions came true when Nehru made it clear to him that he was not willing to play second fiddle to anybody.
4.
Perhaps, Gandhiji wanted both Nehru and Patel to provide leadership to the country. He used his veto power in favour of Nehru because he feared Nehru could cause problems in the way of India’s independence if he was not given the chance to become Prime Minister.
5.
Some analysts have also claimed that Nehru threatened to split the Congress in case he was not made Prime Minister.
6.
According to these analysts, Nehru coerced Gandhiji into supporting him by saying that if he split the Congress, the entire independence plan would go awry as the British would get an excuse in delaying independence by raising the question as to who should be handed over the reins of power, Congress with Nehru or Congress minus Nehru.
7.
Gandhiji must have thought that it would be safe to ask Sardar Patel for making the sacrifice than to reason with a power-smitten Nehru. In fact, he had commented that Nehru had gone power-mad.
8.
So, we can conclude that Gandhi chose Nehru over Patel because of THREE main reasons: -
*Gandhiji believed a foreign educated Nehru with modern thoughts had an edge over Patel who, according to him, was orthodox in his thoughts.
*Gandhiji feared Nehru would revolt in case he was denied PM’s post and that would give the British an excuse to delay transfer of power.
*On the other hand, he was fully convinced of Sardar Patel’s loyalty. He knew Sardar Patel was a true patriot and would never play a spoilsport.
9.
But Gandhiji’s decision proved too costly for the nation.
*First of all, Gandhi introduced the concept of forced decisions by the so-called ‘high-commands’ that usually means overruling state units. This practice, now being followed across the political spectrum, has negated the very concept of inner party democracy.
*Nehru’s follies on Kashmir and China proved beyond doubt the fact that Gandhi committed a mistake in backing Nehru by showing utter disregard to overwhelming support from the majority of PCCs for Sardar Patel.
*Even two known critics of Sardar Patel conceded the point that Gandhi’s decision to chose Nehru over Patel was erroneous.
10.
TWO VETERANS CONFESSION :-
*Maulana Abul Kalam Azad confessed in his autobiography that was published posthumously in 1959, “It was a mistake on my part that I did not support Sardar Patel. We differed on many issues but I am convinced that if he had succeeded me as Congress President he would have seen that the Cabinet Mission Plan was successfully implemented. He would have never committed the mistake of Jawaharlal which gave Mr. Jinnah an opportunity of sabotaging the Plan. I can never forgive myself when I think that if I had not committed these mistakes, perhaps the history of the last ten years would have been different.”
*Similarly, C Rajgopalachary who blamed Sardar Patel for depriving him of the first presidentship of independent India, wrote, “Undoubtedly it would have been better if Nehru had been asked to be the Foreign Minister and Patel made the Prime Minister. I too fell into the error of believing that Jawaharlal was the more enlightened person of the two… A myth had grown about Patel that he would be harsh towards Muslims. This was a wrong notion but it was the prevailing prejudice.”
11.
History has proved it beyond doubt that had Patel been the PM in place of Nehru, the country would not have faced the humiliation of 1962 war.
Days before his death, Patel had written a letter to Nehru warning him about China’s nefarious designs but Nehru didn’t pay any attention to that letter. Even Kashmir would not have become a thorn in the flesh for India, had Patel and not Nehru been the first prime minister of India.
12.
The two most disastrous things which India has to witness are issues of J&K and failure of 1962 Indo-China war and these happened completely due to inadequacy of Nehru.
13.
J&K issues: Nehru’s enmity with Maharaja Hari Singh and close friendship with Sheikh Abdullah, who was a Pakistan sympathizer failed signing of instrument of accession. He didn’t allow army action, when needed. Finally, he escalated the issue to United Nation to make things even worse.
14.
Failure of 1962 war: Nehru was not able to solve the line of control problem politically and when things were becoming worse, our defense preparations were not adequate, thanks to V K Menon. Both Nehru and Menon were weak and impractical leaders. There were not adequate logistics for armed forces. We lacked in numbers as compared to the opponent. IAF was not used in war. There were series of mistakes in this matter, some of which could have taken care of before the face-off, which were many a times pointed out by different leaders in Parliament and outside. But Nehru-Menon duo were so adamant to listen to anyone.
15.
Gandhiji had a soft corner for Nehru. He was made president of Congress twice before also (1929 and 1937). He many a times expressed his view of making Nehru the PM on different platforms. These two factors made Gandhi more inclined towards Nehru.
16.
Nehru had a foreign education. He was sophisticated and had modern outlook. Gandhiji was impressed by his demeanor and communication.
17.
Nehru was a power hungry person. He made it clear to Gandhiji that he would not work as second fiddle to anyone and if he was not made the PM, he would split the Congress and Britishers would get an excuse not to offer independence to India.
18.
Whereas, Gandhiji knew that Patel was a patriot and he would think of nation’s interest first and would not create any problem if he was denied the PM post. That's what happened, Patel obliged to Gandhiji when asked about it.
19.
No doubt, Sardar was a better administrator. He united the whole India,
20.
Nehru took responsibility of J&K and made a complete mess out of it.
A SCHOLAR CANNOT BE A GOOD LEADER
Nehru and Manmohan Singh are the great examples of this.
However, these were past and can’t be changed, SO TAKE LESSONS AND MOVE AHEAD; Anyway, now politics has become very competitive. SO, WE HOPE TO HAVE BEST, SINCERE, HONEST, DEDICATED, HARD WORKING, VISIONARY LOVABLE BY ALL CITIZENS, LEADERS WITH CHARACTER AT THE TOP.
NOTE :-
1.Regionalism :-
*It is considered one of the significant challenges to federalism in India.
*Federalism best thrives as a democratic system when it mitigates the centralization of power sharing between the centre and the states.
*The pluralist character of India gives rise to many factors including regionalism. People from far northeast sometimes feel themselves at a formidable distance from New Delhi and people in southern part of the country with bigger states feel neglected having been within larger states.
*Regionalism or love for one’s area, despite India’s tradition of successful federal rule over the years since independence, still raises its head in different parts of the country.
*The voice for the demand of more states has become more prominent in recent times, especially after the formation of Telangana in 2014. Recent demands like four-fold division of Uttar Pradesh and the creation of Gorkhaland from West Bengal are instances of aggressive regionalism that pose a threat to the federal structure of India.
*The agitations for Gorkhaland, Bodoland, and KarbiAnglong have been revived. This is apart from the new demands for a separate Vidarbha State in Maharashtra, and Harit Pradesh and Poorvanchal in Uttar Pradesh. The more the number of states the more the centre will be held hostage to state parties on matters of national importance.
*For instance, West Bengal threatened India’s Teesta river waters treaty with Bangladesh because of its possible potential costs for West Bengal. Even growing regional powers may affect effective foreign policy as the federal government may bow to the will of an individual state. India had to vote in favour of UNHRC resolution for Sri Lanka in 2012 for a backlash from Tamil Nadu.
2. Language Conflicts
Diversity in languages in India sometimes causes a blow the federal spirit of the Constitution. There are 22 languages constitutionally approved in India. Besides, hundreds of dialects are spoken across the country. Trouble arises when the strongest unit of the federation attempts to force a particular language on others. The tussle for official language in India is still a burning issue. The southern states’ opposition to Hindi as the official language of India has led to deep-seated language crisis in India.
Opinion :-
1. Present BJP Government at the Center, undr PM MODJI, MOVING FAST, WITH DETERMINATION TO MAKE NEW BHARATHAM;
2. AT PRESENT THEY ARE COMPLETING ALL PENDING PREVIOUS PROJECTS WITH GREAT SPEED;
3. ALONG THEY ARE IMPROVING VARIOUS SECTORS AT WAR FOOT;
4. 70 YEARS OF NEGLECTED PAST BY CITIZENS AND POLITICIANS IS IN OUR FRONT;
5. SO FOUR YEARS IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE UP, CITIZENS MUST REALIZE THIS TRUTH;
6. A LONG INNINGS IS NECESSARY, GIVE TIME TO MODIJI, PM IS DEDICATED, DO NOT FALL UNDER STUPID OPPOSITION, DO NOT BELIEVE THE OPPOSITION, ALL WANT POWER, ALL WANT PM POST;
7. DO NOT CREATE PROBLEMS BY USING TOOLS SUCH AS LANGUAGE PRIDE, RELIGIONS, CASTE, MYTHS LIKE DRAVIDA-S, AND MANY MORE MAD, MAD FOOLISH THOUGHTS..
8. DO NOT SPEAK MINORITY, MAJORITY TERMS;
9. DO NOT DEMAND RESERVATIONS ON CASTE BASIS, GET AWAY FROM CASTE FOLDERS;
10. ALL LANGUAGES ARE EQUAL, TRY TO LEARN MOTHER OF ALL LANGUAGES - DIVINE LANGUAGE "SANSKRIT" - ALL OVER THE WORLD PEOPLE ARE LEARNING THIS, SECONDLY, STUDY SRIMAD BHAGAVAD GEETA, YOUR MIND WILL BE CLEAR, THIRDLY, FEEL BHARATEEYA IN HEART, LANGUAGE IS A TOOL OF EXPRESSION ONLY.
JAIHIND
VANDEMATHARAM
Comments
Post a Comment