They say Mrs Indira Gandhi’s face was ashen as if carved in stone. She was delivering address to the nation on 15th August 1975. She had been delivered second defeat by Dr K (K stands for killer) early in the morning. The first defeat was delivered to her when she was outwitted and outmanoeuvred at Shimla in July 1972.

The success of all covert actions lie in their simplicity. If the trap fails you walk away unharmed. The coup against Ergodan failed because it was lousy and complicated. The trap couldn’t be reversed. It trapped the conspirators. Even innocent s didn’t escape the reprisals. Failure! The target was not at home. “I told you to kill everybody. Even the dog! But Catalya escaped. Now she is sending us the message. Clean the mess you have created!” But Catalya succeeded.

 In Sheikh Mujib’s family everybody was killed by the Bengal Lancers of 1st Armoured 535 infantry Div under Major Huda. Sheikh Hassina escaped. She fostered the revenge and at the opportune time avenged herself.

Revenge! Dr K is a pathological killer. Very revengeful! He has immortalised sadism. The new born Bangla Desh was not adequately educated by India, tactically incompetent as she is, to advise Mujib how to weave layers of defence around himself as he had a vast section of pro Pakistani population to deal with. To make matters worse, Pakistan and slighted America were baying for his blood. Along with Salvador Allede of Chile, Taiyoo of Vietnam, Sheikh Mujib became a statistic in the American death register.

Indira Gandhi had put J N Dixit as her favourite in Bengal High Commission. But he was trained in the Gandhian Monkey Morals! So he pretended blind and deaf when the left wing insurgency reared its head. He also kept his mouth zipped up before Mr Gandhi. Treason was in the Bengal air. The powerful Chatra League was split and Jaityo Samajik Tantrik Dal (JSD) was formed. Col Abu Taher inu controlled JSD. They started killing Awami league supporters, members and police. The zerox copy of this tactics was put in action in 1988 in Kashmir in Toto. The law and order took a beating.

Long investigation by veteran US journalist Lifschulz has made it clear that there was a deep rooted conspiracy behind the dark episode of Aug ’75. Although Eugene Booster the US ambassador in Dakha was against any misadventure, yet the station chief Philip Cherry perhaps under the spell of Dr K provided logistical/monetary/tactical support. That the coup was carried out in the wee hours of 15th August was a message to India. Grow up!

P N Haksar was a good diplomat. That is what the records tell us. Our farmers, labourers and rickshaw pullers don’t keep APR records. They consign events to their memories. When I enquired from a section of these record keepers, they tell me that he was a diplomat. When I remind them that he was a good one, they shrug and shake their heads. They quiz me: How can we say that he was a good Head Clerk or a diplomat unless we compare him with a diplomat of another country which has succeeded while we are somewhat going in circles? For example, they say that China woke up in ’49 two years before we yawned. But they are 100 years ahead of us. So common sense tells us that they produced good Head clerks and better diplomats. I am floored!

If I remember it correctly, Haksar was involved in talking with two Pakistani Head Clerks, on the sly in London just before Bhutto was preparing the list of a very large contingent to overwhelm Indira Gandhi who was, after the victory in ’71 projected as Mighty Durga-Indira! Why London-the Home of all intrigue and deception! Why not Tehran which was friendly and safe for at least India? Even a peon in South Block can tell you that just like every fever in the body can be traced to an infection, every trouble in the world can be traced to London. The arrogance fostered by a false victory was enough to mislead Indian establishment into believing that they were better placed to dictate. But Haksar was a student of false historian- Nehru. And he had taught him that the Treaty of Versailles had fostered the 2nd world war. It means that a victorious nation should be very considerate and soft on the defeated country. The secret of the hopeless of the Indian diplomacy against Pakistan and her empowerment lies in this Nehruvian fad. Even today those who are indulged in ‘Aman Ka Tamasha’ with Pakistan suffer from this pathological malady.

Now an elementary knowledge of European history tells us that Europe was always in war with one another. They couldn’t help stealing each other’s eggs/chicken/livestock/riches. Europe was always poor. Crusades made them poorer. So telling us that a particular treaty was responsible is not correct. All other wars which happened in the aftermath of WW2 can’t be explained if we accept the Nehru’s fad. The other fad was the rejection of Two Nation Theory although it was a decisive victory of the communalism which delivered us the modern India. More partitions are in the offing because our constitution has taken us back to pre-partitioned India!

Now I shall reproduce two notes from Haksar to Pakistan side which traces the path of the Freudian side of Haksar’s diplomatic caravan of thoughts.

1 We should not allow ourselves be allowed by echoes of the past but come with new ideas and new approaches which can allow to solve problems ourselves rather than going to war or a 3rd party.

2 Indian politics has its own compulsions. We consider it our business to manage our obscurantists and hard elements. But we are similarly hopeful you will be able to manage yours. But we can’t permit our individual internal compulsions to affect our settlement in favour of either party.

This is the victorious side not the defeated side telling the nice things! The roles are reversed. I can’t understand who were the obscurantists Indians who had the temerity to muster courage or influence to obstruct anything constructive?

On the other hand the Pakistani side had never concealed their official and unofficial hatred against India and the Hindus. Neither did they care to conceal open genocide against the Hindu in the immediate aftermath of the partition nor did they care for the genocide their army indulged in, on the eve of creation of Bangla Desh. By India’s own admission, Pakistan had launched attacks on her, right up from Oct ’47 while we never dared to fire a short in their direction. So what made Haksar to crawl before Aziz will remain a mystery? Was he bought or threatened by Western Powers to surrender the initiative at Shimla!

I am tempted to quote some lines from Ch 11 Sadism of the Hindu Elite: ……..It was not India talking to Pakistan at Shimla in ’72. It was Pakistan talking to Pakistan at Shimla in ’72. That is my reading. I haven’t gone through a worst draft that was drafted at Shimla by the Hindu Elite. Aggressor and Defender placed at the same level. It is like two ruffians reading an affidavit before a Magistrate-Class 1, promising to behave properly in future.

When we were in the primary school, on one occasion we were treated with sweets. It was 14th November and we were told that it was to celebrate chacha Nehru’s birthday. That day we knew who chacha Nehru is/was. Later when we grew up a loquacious crowd would usually gather in the Coffee House. One day someone related what the poet Sher Mohd Khan Insha had sarcastically penned in his essay India:   …famous among the kings of India are the Buddhist Raja Ashoka and Raja Nehru! Ashoka’s greatest memorials are his inscribed pillars and Ashoka Hotel at Delhi. Nehru’s greatest memorial is the Kashmir problem which seems firmer and more lasting than the memorials of Ashoka.

That day we were introduced to the personae of Raja Nehru!


Mohammad Mosaddegh was born about 7 years before Nehru was born, on 16 June Nov 1882. Nur Mohd Taraki was much Junior. He was born in July 1917. Taraki was a communist in a haste. He had not grasped Marxism properly. Marx had never talked about applying his ideology to feudalistic systems. He was of the opinion that the capital was capable of bringing the unity of the working class. And at a stage of evolution and decay of capitalism was a revolution possible. But Taraki started with agrarian reform in a highly religious and feudalistic society. He failed and lost his life 9 months after he started his welfare programme. But the orgy of death and destruction is still up and kicking there.

Mosaddegh was not a wise leader either. But communist winds got better of him and he tried to fight poverty of Iran by socialist reforms. Iran again was a feudal economy-poor and illiterate. But he was a strong willed leader. So apart from other measures he initiated nationalisation of Anglo Persian Oil Company which later on became BP (British Petroleum). This was not a wise decision because of two reasons. He was not powerful enough to face the western challenges. It was the British who had discovered Oil in Iran in 1913 and commanded all the expertise of treatment of crude oil.

Brits were naturally angry. It was a great loss after they had exhausted their ill-gotten/theft riches in the wars. They required money to rebuild the battle grounds. So they decided to get rid of Mosaddegh. But not sure about their own expertise they marshalled American support for the job. And America did oblige them.

The Iranian-Armenian Historian Ervand Abrahamian, author of coup 1953 writes: “My study of documents proves to me that there was never really a fair compromise offered to Mosaddegh. What they wanted Mosaddegh to do was to give up oil nationalisation and if he had given in then the national movement would have been meaningless.”

A leader is not a general. His job is cut for him. Diplomacy! He must have courage. Swagger is no courage. He must tell the truth to its people when cornered by his adversaries especially foreign. He should have patience to sit across a table and listen. Mrs Gandhi lost because she lacked patience. Pakistan played upon her impatience. A leader above all should be competent. By competence I mean he should accurately predict the consequences and be prepared for it.

Iran was politically passing through an uncertain period. Desperate and dejected Mosaddegh during the period of great uncertainty wailed: Iran would have been better off without oil!

In the year1953 AD CIA was only six year old adult. The operatives besides young officers were drawn from veterans who had fought in WW2. The first assignment was to overthrow the legitimate elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh of Iran. The Iranian Armenian Historian Ervand Abrahamian, the author of: Coup 1953, the CIA & Roots of modern US-Iranian Relations writes

“My study of documents proves to me that there was never really a fair compromise offered to Mosadeq. They wanted him to give up oil nationalisation and if he had given in then the national movement would have been meaningless.”

The curse of every country is that there are always enough people available who can be bought or coerced to act according the wishes of powerful powers. “.. So young CIA agents used suit cases full of cash to destabilise the regime! They managed to buy newspaper editors. Hoodlums and lumpen elements were directed to organise rallies against the government. A fake communist party was also cobbled together to raise the spectre of communism to scare Americans and Europeans” says film maker Mazier Bahari. Even the services of Ayatollah Khomeini were also sourced against Musadeq.

According to Bahari, the first attempt was made on 15th August ’53 but it failed. Washington chickened out. A telegram to Kermit Roosevelt, CIA officer was despatched to call off the operation. But Roosevelt ignored it and four days later the operation succeeded.


Prosperity is the gift of Statesmanship. As I look back I can see it clearly that JLN was not a statesman. His career was carefully built up by his father who commanded  great influence with the English gentry. I have not come across his abilities where he would lead the street battles or sit on dharnas. He never participated in hunger strikes along with Gandhi. Escape routes to avoid physical political activities were already crafted by his father. At the action time he would be picked up and ensconced in jail. He would naturally enjoy facilities as were available to political prisoners. Being a Kashmiri breadth of his vision was wider than that of his contemporaries. He made his son acceptable to masses. Propaganda machine was well oiled. Fame of JLN glided over the wings of hearsay. He gained acceptance of the masses. But he remained politically ignorant. Books kept his company and he became a philosopher of sorts.

JLN successfully engineered a coup against an able statesman V B Patel. He pawned Gandhi. And when he came face to face with his own incompetence he tried to fight with his tools. Did he see in Gandhi the source of his own failures is a subject which should catch the attention of the scholars? Did he abet the murder of Gandhi?

At least for me his first address to the Nation was a disaster which he should have avoided. Thousands of farmers from nearby villages, labourers, rickshaw pullers and assorted refugees had gathered to listen. And how did he begin. As world sleeps….! That was the first lie. And the medium of his speech! English! Even today the best amongst the Hindu Elite can’t write sensible sentences. (Please read ch 9, 5th column and one mind many responses]. The worst omission was that he didn’t invoke the blessings of God in which the unwavering faith of the audience resided. His was not an address to the Nation. It was his swagger that he delivered more to the West and less to Indians.

This leads us to the main question. Why did the INC exhaust its ideological kitty in less than fifty years? After 1991, it survived on the crutches of political fringe elements and is now on death bed.

“When virtue is lost, benevolence appears. When benevolence is lost right conduct appears. When right conduct is lost expedience appears. Expedience is the mere shadow of right and truth. It is the beginning of chaos”

If JLN put us on a train to hell, how can it reach heaven if drivers change midway? The destinations don’t change if the drivers are replaced repeatedly.