date: 11 dec 2008 comment: why jawaharlal nehru was desperate to see kashmir invaded high treason is of two kinds. one, where a traitor betrays the location of a small military unit to the enemy and has it wiped out. the other is of strategic nature with devastating consequences for the whole nation, as a result of which the entire country would be enslaved for centuries, or vast chunks of her territory are surrendered unconditionally to the enemy, to hold in perpetuity. but whatever the kind of high treason is committed the traitor lives in deadly fear and is, therefore, at extreme pains to hide his crime. he will go to any length not only to make sure that his act of betrayal remains undiscovered but will also marginalize and demoralize, even destroy, the elements that pose a threat to him. india? jawaharlal nehru was no different. nehru's high treason fell into second category, i.e., strategic. it was extremely ingenious. as a result, he not only escaped being lynched or shot dead but, on the contrary, was hailed as the architect of modern india, the greatest patriot and liberator, and the best politician that hindustan ever produced. an essential part of this process had to be the neglect and betrayal of the real threat to him- india? armed forces. let us examine the act of treason that smashed india's integrity and wiped out her cherished secularism in five provinces overnight without a single traitor being caught. why was it so? because nehru himself was that criminal who had to be exposed and then either lynched by patriots or stood before the firing squad. how did he manage to escape? having readily agreed to the unconditional surrender of five provinces to his bosom friend mohammed ali jinnah and leaning heavily on mk gandhi? anesthetic chants of ?indu muslim bhai bhai? he devised the idea of getting kashmir invaded in order to lock the nation's full attention to that state while completely forgetting the fate of five others. thus the invasion of kashmir took place within days of partition in accordance with nehru? desperate desire. nehru had signed history? worst ever unconditional surrender without demanding referendum or insisting on transfer of population. he had no mandate to do so. he feared for his life and felt himself in mortal danger from a patriot? bullet. that is why he did not put an end to that aggression within days when the indian troops were advancing rapidly, wiping out the invaders. he took the case to uno where, to his great satisfaction, it stalled for years, if not for decades, taking the eyes of the nation off nehru? own treachery. we can now understand why nehru feared none more than his own armed forces. he drastically reduced their pay and status overnight, denied them glory and thrill of victories in battlefield, deliberately hurt their pride at every step, reduced their battle worthiness by keeping them understaffed, undermanned and very poorly equipped. one never realized that the chinese were ?nvited?by none else but jawaharlal nehru to inflict a crushing defeat on india in 1962. the well timed chants of ?indi chini bhai bhai?were the equivalent of psychological anesthesia to confuse and demoralise the armed forces. is one supposed to kill ?rothers? his dynasty continued that ?rmy bashing?culture and pushed them into fight against the tamils in sri lanka only to receive a ?loody nose?and end hostilities in a cease fire as they had been ordered to do in kashmir. nehru died in glory, passing on the autocratic rule to his daughter indira who loved the flattery in the phrase, "indira is india", coined by world's most slavish media who had no time and interest to expose her as a muslim (mrs. khan) and an enemy of the hindus. consider this: even today the subservient hindu nation has no interest whatsoever in discovering the core loyalty of the italian-born sonia maino who is called ?ashtramata?(mother of nation) and given front seat in the indian parliament. no wonder or surprise then, that to this day the ignorant indians (mp?, mla?, governors, ministers, scholars, priests and soldiers, all included) are more locked on to the kashmir dispute than concerned over the unconditional surrender of lahore, karachi, peshawar, quetta and dhaka, for which not only the congress party had to be disbanded, even put behind bars promptly, but also the koran banned and the transfer of population accomplished immediately. nehru dynasty, that still holds partitioned india in their tight grip and is the extension of his will & legacy, is stuck to the original high treason that also trapped kashmir in the cycle of permanent death and destruction, that has turned this tourists?paradise into terrorists hell. nehru had thrown a gauntlet to the indian muslims after rewarding them amply with vast territory, ? will give you lahore but not srinagar!?but article 370 of constitution, laden with special favours and concessions for the kashmiris, was meant to soften the blow on them for being forced to stay in bharat. that is why no other state is conceded such lavish subsidies and grants. nehru? sway was so dictatorial that no other state in india even dared to question the special status of kashmir or demand the same subsidies and concessions as given to the kashmiris. indian soldiers can be made to fight and die in defense of kashmir but no indian can buy land in that state while a kashmiri can do so all over india. indians overlooked another betrayal with the ease of breathing and forgave the culprit. it was the return of our own captured territory, east bengal, to islam in 1972. many brave soldiers had lost their lives in that war for the sake of india and secularism, not for islam. indira, true to her father? anti indian and pro islamic ideology, did not commend secularism to shaikh mujiburrahman, the bengali leader. indira was a secret convert to islam at the time of marrying feroze khan of allahabad in 1942 who became ?andhi?for political expediency. as a muslim she could not lift a finger to bring any gain to secular india, leave aside bringing back captured east bengal to hindustan. after the indian army smashed east pakistan, mujiburrahman, the bengali leader, was keen to unite bengal by joining india. he was a liberal musalman. indira was shocked at the very idea and advised him to accept sovereignty, saying, ? separate islamic state will act as the formidable barrier between hindu india and buddhist burma.? she was true to her father? islamic roots and loyalties, but was adored and admired by the ignorant hindus who, even today, see none more suitable to lead and guide hindustan than sonia, the catholic ?hite elephant?from italy. waiting in the wings to continue this strategic doom of hindus in bharat is rahul ?andhi?with future spouse waiting in catholic colombia. it is in this direction that we see the native indian (hindu) leaders?unfinished task. 5 dec 2008. 000000000 ==========================
HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable.