How Gandhi destroyed India- !

PART 1

My late grand-father was a renowed historian of Bihar, a staunch congress supporter. followed Gandhian values throughout his life. But even he when in an unbiased mood would accept that most of the ills plaguing tthe country today are a gift of Gandhi and his self styled followers. I doubt if anyone of would even bother to contradict me, most of us dislike Gandhi but because of reasons we don't  know.   

When India won independence most of the civil servants (at that time they were indeed good) felt that Sardar Patel should lead the country. Gandhi interfered and Nehru became the PM, do i need to tell you the mamoth blunders of Nehru or his flawed policies and useless leadership. But herewith began the culture of politcal heirachy. That was the first time in independent India that personal choice dominated reason. And since then reason has taken a back seat - Nehru was followed by Indira, Sanjay, Rajeev, Rahul and most intrestingly Sonia. Many beleive and not without reason that Patel would have brought about a different India, you should know that he united 610 princely states as India, the India you know today is his work. That small blunder as it may seem of Gandhi changed the way of governance in India. Gandhi  patronised his followers and disregarded the rest nationalist whether Bhagat Singh or Bose..............today you need to appease Madam Gandhi. Gandhi practised politics without any office or authority or responsibility, that is what many Godfathers do today Sonia or Lalu, Left or others.


The culture of pseudo secularism - appeasement and threatening of minorities was begun by Gandhi. In the riots of 1947 trains full of dead bodies of  were sent from Pakistan. The news was suppressed so that the Indians don't retaliate. But that was the beginning of another brand of Politics - even today after 60 yrs Congress still talks about the riots to the Muslims not development, they have been shown that if they want to live they need congress. Pakistan was not a country created by Jinnah, its first budget of 55 crores was donated by India on the insistence of Gandhi. Imagine a country full of hungry people giving one third of its money to a country which killed its citizens. No one else but Gandhi could have done it. He changed the meaning of secularism forever, now it was protection of minorities from the majority. He went to every rioted place to stop Hindus from killing, intrestingly he never visited any of the Muslim dominated areas or Pakistan, he could have easily gone there. And till today the secularism remains same. So whenever someone talks about the majority he is a communal one.
Gandhi's policies of winning freedom - satyagraha and civil disobedience have made the whole nation disobedient. People still go to strike for every petty purpose. Politcians have two mootos - when in power loot as much as you can when in opposition strike as much as you can. Have you seen those scenes in Parliament and assemblies ? Throwing chairs and uprooting the stage. We should be ashamed of electing such leaders and yet we donot feel shame because that is what Gandhi did ! People call strikes reminding Gandhi did it. The coomon man feared law before Gandhi who told them to break the law and you know what law means today. Meant to be broken, civic sense has been completely wasted. India is wayward today because we have lived in a India where law comes secondary to money and power.
                                                                    I know there is nothing to be gained from accusing him. But there is nothing to be gained from praising him either. I just read Digvijay Singh reminding people that Congress is the party of Gandhi, the most honest secular and social leader of all time and Congress follows his ideals. That is why we need to know that Gandhi's ideals were the biggest curse on India and Congress keeps on reviving it.

Is Nitish better than Lalu !

Okay for most of you this might seem absurd Nitish vs Lalu, oh my god you'r comparing the sun with darkness. Let me also clarify that I detest Lalu Yadav as much as you. Than why am I asking such a question ? Yesterday I met this gentleman from a well reputed company who had given up his job for studying Bihar and he had this question. I sounded aghast on hearing it but soon his arguments got the better of me.

                        See both of these leaders are products of  JP school of politics, so one thing that's crystal clear is both have the same mindset that of JP. You might think JP was iconic and instrumental in overthrowing Indira, perhaps he was. But the benefit of his movement is overshadowed by the ill after effects. The decay in India's education system is his biggest gift. Most of the Indian Colleges are full of hooligans today, the entry of such people in politics is also a gift of JP and that is turning out to be a big threat. What I am trying to point out is that both Lalu and Nitish have the same political education. In fact Nitish served Lalu for over 10 yrs in governance. Now that's a long time, so if he says that he left Lalu because of Bihar it sounds wrong. Both of them rose to prominence practising caste & only caste one talking of yadavs and other kurmis. Both of them have made controversial caste remarks, while you remember what Lalu said you have forgotten the same words of Nitish.  And now if one of them says that he doesn't believe in caste what does it mean ? You just need to look into his cabinet a wonderful conglomerate of all castes which voted for him. They are ministers not because they deserve infact of 28 ministers in cabinet 16 have criminal cases against them, 6 have even been accused of rape, so they are there because of their caste equations.

I am not telling you that Bihar hasn't developed it has definitely and and a considerable rate. But all these statements that politics in Bihar has changed or that Bihar has changed are misleading. Creations of the media. Talk of the elections last year the theme was that since Nitish has developed Bihar so all the forward and kurmis and dalits will vote for him. Did the yadavs vote for him where the nominee was not of their community. Talking of my college itself all my yadav batchmates voted for lalu (they said:परंपरा है निभाना है ). And when you see the vote percentage 34 % for NDA and 26 % for Lalu and co it should strike you that something doesn't add on of the victory margin 204-33 ? Infact what many people rightly beleive is that Nitish has increased casteism for his own benefits creating mahadalits out of dalits, dalit muslims......etc. He has used it to his own benefit. And still you will say that at least Bihar is developing under him, my freind Germany too developed under Hitler but what happened to the civilisation. Someting similar is going on in Bihar and rather India. We are becoming incresingly fragmented, restless and indivuliastic. Concrete jungles and sky scrappers do not bring development, it is the people who do. That's why Japan is a happier nation than USA. Strangely no one amongst us or the media see this fact, they esaily disregard it. This hullabaloo is something similar to India shining campaign.

                                                       In short I am not telling you to vote for Lalu, I wouldn't do it for myself. All I am asking you is too look with an unbiased eye. Most of you detest Lalu when you hear him because of the way he speaks: illetrate (he is a LLB) , how many of you have actually listened to what he says? That should not be the case, you should know how he destroyed Bihar and created a Jungle Raj here, then you should hate him. Similarly just because Nitish speaks in the manner we do, we should not overlook his wrong doings. In the end "IF BIHAR HAS TO CHANGE BIHARIS WILL HAVE TO CHANGE AT THE FOREMOST"