UP Poles : Great Mandate to BJP

For the first time in the history of independent India this secular-communal bullshit is over. UP's electorate has shown it conclusively that our democracy has matured. Though some political leaders would still love to be in denial. For example Behenji says how it is possible that Muslim majority areas have voted for BJP candidate? It's unbelievable! Behenji, it happened because the farce of all these years is no longer valid! Simple as that. That you give 90 seats to Muslim candidates simply because they are Muslims, is secular? That Mr.Digvijay unashamedly questions the timing of unravelling a terror conspiracy is secular. But Yogi Adityanath emphasising need of safety & security of every one in UP without discrimination is communal?. Reversing a Supreme Court's decision in Shahbano case is secular? But talking of legitimate rights against Tin Talaaque is communal? Actually this majority-minority bullshit has sidetracked all these years, the main agenda of safety, security, employment, development, infrastructure & equal opportunity. It's no coincidence that the states where this Business was in play all these years are the most backward ones today. But now the voter has matured. And for that matter kudos to UP electorate. Even in Punjab also the AAP party, a bubble of electronic and social media, has been shown its true place. BJP-SAD combine has also been given the warning in Punjab.
It's clear that masses want an honest intent and delivery from the ruling party now. Gone are the days when you will easily polarize on cast-creed lines and get a contract for 5 years to ' luto-khasoto'. After 5 years you will play the same card again. Now you will be required to ensure what we call 'good governance ' and stick to the agenda of 'Development'. Modi n Shah have definitely been able to turn the tables on this so-called secular 'Pariwar'. And the road ahead will be chequered with controlling our own 'Pariwar' too, lest the central agenda is sidetracked again. Wish you luck Mr.Modi.

Kashmir: The valley of saints and sinners

The valley is under fire once again. It is a sad story and worse still we have very coloured and limited information about the whole issue. Recently I read "Kashmir - the storm centre of the world" written by Shri Balraj Madhok. I have yet to find any other book that is so authentic n so honest on the whole issue. Of course Mr Madhok's political leanings come at places more than one yet no one, in my view, has dealt this subject so originally &  with such geo political details. Another book I remember is  "India after Gandhi" - by Shri Ramchandra Guha which also gave some interesting details. However, Mr. Guha's  communist mind set  and love for Nehru (which I think is a natural corollary for every communist) probably stopped him from calling a spade a spade. Since Mr. Madhok was originally from Kashmir and had been an active player in all the events his analysis is extremely sharp. He also enjoys the gift of pithy, crisp n clear expression. For anyone who is interested to know about the whole issue these two books are invaluable.

In my view every Indian should be concerned about the affairs in Kashmir as they can drag us in a world war like situation any time. Since we have been cut-off all along, we are not able to see the danger that is brewing there.

The problem of Kashmir is our diplomatic failure instead of anything else. We won all the three wars yet could not settle anything with Pakistan for only one reason: Diplomatically we were confused 😖!

In my view , there are 3 vital aspects of this issue :

a) what is the genesis of the problem?
b) who wants to solve it and who wants to keep it alive forever?
c) what should be our line of action?

We want to be in denial on all of the three points above that is why I say ours is a diplomatic failure. For example we think the issue had its origin in the dilly dallying attitude of Maharaja Hari Singh and his not acceding to either India or Pakistan by Aug 15, 1947. But we are blissfully unaware why it happened in the first place? What were the reasons behind Maharaja's indecision. Dogras (the clan to which Maharaja belonged) were patriotic Rajputs and it was too natural for the Maharaja to prefer India over Pakistan. Still he could not decide. Why?

We have see the situation in its entirety and scratch a little deeper.

Long before Aug 1947 and sometime around 1925, the English had begun supporting a Muslim guy in Kashmir who was raising the cause of Muslims dissatisfaction in the valley. Though Dogra rule was there for more than 100 years and the whole state (including Jammu n Ladakh region) was more than happy, this guy raised the issue that higher administrative positions were dominated by Hindus. The guy was highly ambitious to become champion of Kashmiri Muslims and destabilize Maharaja's government. He was well versed in Koran, a gifted orator, a tall n handsome personality n master of histrionics. Kashmiri Muslims immediately fell for this guy, Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah and a party by name Muslims Conference came up under his leadership. Sheikh had full support of the English. It's at this point that the first seeds of communalism were sown in Kashmir valley otherwise it was the single state in the country where no rioting took place in Aug 47 and  Buddhist, Sikhs, Dogras, Pandits n  Muslims all lived peacefully totally unconscious of their religious identity. They were all Kashmiris. That Mr. Abdullah was a first choice for the British is not as unfortunate  as the fact that it hit it off instantly when he met our dear would be Prime Minister Mr. J.L .Nehru. The two kinda fell in love with each other at first sight (no pun intended please). This was as early as 1925.

Year 1927 saw Sheikh leading various representations to Maharaja about the cause of Kashmiri Muslims and their rights etc.

In 1931, Sheikh Abdullah led a protest march and some arsoning and disturbances took place and curfew had to be imposed in Shrinagar. Sheikh was jailed by the state. Mr. Nehru tried to visit the valley to help his "Friend" but he was detained at the border by the prime minister of Maharaja. Sheikh was released later.

Things came to a head when Abdulla called for quit Kashmir movement in 1946 and called upon Maharaja to relinquish his rule and let the state be ruled by "awam's representative".  So much so that The Maharaja had to charge Sheikh with sedition and put him behind the bar.

Such was the turmoil and turbulence in the valley in the years 1946-47 when the question of accession came up before the Maharaja.

As is well known Mr. Nehru was a great friend of friends (and greater enemy of enemies). He had not forgotten his humiliation of 1931 when he was detained at the border by Maharaja. Hence, when the issue of accession came up, Nehru decided to settle the score. A precondition was indicated to the Maharaja that Sheikh Abdullah be released and given a high position in the administration of Jammu n Kashmir. Only then the accession will be acceptable to the government of India. It's this reason that put Maharaja in a fix. He didn't want to accede to Pakistan. He also didn't want to release Mr.Abdullah at any cost. So what to do ? This is what actually delayed the accession of J&K.

Someone, at this point,  gave him the idea of making Kashmir the "Switzerland of east" and Maharaja immediately took to it as he had himself spent sometime in Switzerland. Maharaja indicated to Mountbatten and others of his wish to remain independent and in fact proposed a stand still agreement to both India and Pakistan. Jinnah immediately signed but India vacillated to sign this agreement.

So lack of clarity in vision regarding the issue of Kashmir was nowhere else but in our own house. This we must not forget!

It's here the genesis of Kashmir problem lies.

We were in fact presented with an opportunity  when Pakistan attacked us through tribals in 1947. For, the decision that was not being taken by Maharaja became indispensable now. He had to decide in favour of India if he wanted to save his state and people from aggressors. Maharaja ate the humble pie and agreed for accession and any precondition whatever. Therefore, an "Instrument of accession" (IA), was signed in black n white like it was done with all the other princely states acceding to either of the nations after partition and government of India extended military help to protect the state as it was its own territory now.

IA is the first and foremost legal document that supports our claim on the state of Jammu & Kashmir. We Indians simply don't know why this document has been underplayed all these years? Why our diplomats n powers that be, did not put it emphatically in UN and all such international forums that we have a legal document of accession? Nothing else matters really. After aggression in fact Pakistan had lost its case totally. We had our Army already doing a commendable job and living up to the occasion. It was simply a matter of remaining assertive, driving back the aggressors and claiming our legal right. That's all! If we did it sincerely and firmly there wouldn't be any Kashmir problem today.

But we made an unforgivable blunder. We stopped our forces from moving any further and took the matter to the UN. Supposedly, it was  Mountbatten who had advised Nehru to do that. It could be so because in those times USSR n US were two super powers and there was cold war between the two. J & K had a strategic location which was not far from Russia. As such, it's possible that US n UK didn't want the whole of J&K to go to India as Nehru and his India were known to be having leftist leanings. Whatsoever be the reason Mr. Nehru got into the trap and referred the matter to UN. It's at this point that Pakistan got some footing and became a contender otherwise Pakistan had no case whatever. At UN, power politics came into play and we were defeated diplomatically when UK , US etc showed their true colours and Russia stood aloof(?). Nehru regretted his decision badly afterwards.

The UN ordered ceasefire and passed a resolution for a plebiscite with a precondition that both the nations withdraw their forces n restore normalcy. Pakistan was ordained to withdraw its forces first because it was the aggressor. Pakistan did not care for this mandate and kept fighting. Here again we lacked political will. If we really insisted upon UN to make Pakistan withdraw and somehow managed the plebiscite to take place we would have surely won. In 1947-48 nobody  wanted to go with Pakistan. But we didn't do anything and the plebiscite never happened as the precondition was never met. In my  view going to UN was not all that bad but following up the resolutions half -heartedly was.

Anyway, since  Oct 1947 Abdullah was the de-facto Prime Minister of J&K and he continued till 1953 with full and almost blind support from New Delhi where the supreme authority was his friend J.L.Nehru.

We still had one more diplomatic blunder in our fate. Now that the matter was in UN, Abdullah suggested to Nehru that there should be a constitutional link that will define the relation of India with J&K. I do not know who were the actual perpetrators of Article 370 but as per books the article was drawn by Sheikh and supported by Nehru. The constituent assembly of India did not approve it and B R Ambedker had refused its draft out rightly. Still the assembly was given an assurance that it's only a provisional arrangement and it will die its own death in the course of time. How shrewdly Sheikh secured himself a very very special status as compared to any of the other states of independent India! Right in the making of constitution he maneuvered the insertion of Article 370. It was a suicidal step for India as it nullified and in fact superseded the legality of instrument of accession which was the original legal document.

Our naivety was beyond comprehension.

The contents of article 370 were in every manner suicidal and put India forever at the expense of head of state of J&K. He could always blackmail and change posts on the strength of provisions of Article 370 (Sheikh did exactly that and in fact had to be jailed in 1953 for Anti India activities). Article 370 tied India's hands forever to make any attempt of integration of J&K into India.
I take a quote verbatim from Ramchandra Guha's book : " It was curious to see whether Sheikh was a man of Nehru in J&K or Nehru was a man of Sheikh in India." 

There was a perennial flaw in the policy of supporting Sheikh blindly. It had a reversing effect on the regions other than valley. After coming to power,  Sheikh immediately took to agrarian reforms. A ceiling was put on land and big landlords in the valley (who were mostly Hindu Dogras) had to surrender excess land to be   redistributed among Muslim peasantry. As a natural consequence  Jammu and Ladakh regions grew sceptical about anything Sheikh did and they had reasons for it. As a result parties like Praja Parishad (Peoples Party) came up to support their cause & large scale protests and marches were conducted. Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee supported the cause of Hindus of Jammu vehemently and ultimately paid for it with his life. In a nutshell, an environment of rift, resentment and total distrust resulted in the valley. How could Pakistan watch all this silently whose sole agenda was to snatch Kashmir from India? It did everything possible to add fuel to fire.

Pakistan has wedged three wars on us on this issue. We have won all of them yet on the table of negotiations we have failed miserably. For one reason or the other we always lost diplomatically. Reportedly, Pakistan always had a mole or two in our foreign ministry and our preparations were always leaked to it. Whatever be the cause, we haven't settled a single thing in 1947, 1965 and 1972 , though ours was a commanding position in all of them. In Tashkent in 1965, we were ditched by our friendly country USSR. Shastri was so much pressurized by USSR to return the already 'won territories ' to Pakistan that he could not bear the brunt of signing a losing accord and did not see the light the next day. A possibility of foul play cannot be denied as no post-mortem was carried.

In 1972, Mrs Gandhi showed a tough front initially. She was a goddess anyway because we had a clear victory with 90000 prisoners of war and 5000 sq miles of won territory in our hand. Bhutto withstood a lot of pressure and when talks were almost about to fail, requested one to one talks with Mrs Gandhi as a last resort. Whatever transpired in those 1-2 hours, after that Mrs Gandhi agreed to everything she shouldn't have. We returned the won territory as well as prisoners of war and couldn't even convert LOC as international border. It's said Bhutto assured her something verbally and Mrs.Gandhi believed. However,  after Bhutto returned to Pakistan all assurances went to thin air and we were back to square one as far as Kashmir was concerned i.e. the position of 1949.

The Simla accord of 1972 was such a fiasco that there were news of a military coup in India too as our Army had felt badly humiliated. After all they had put up such a gallant show and we couldn't settle even a single thing with Pakistan. Not only that, in our magnanimity, we returned everything Army had won through its blood and toil.

So, summarily it can be concluded that diplomatic failures one after the other is the underlying reason to what we are witnessing in the valley today.

Now so much of water has flown through the Jhelum that the overall situation is really precarious today. There are so many stake holders that any one amicable solution is really difficult if not impossible. But before talking of any solution we must think as to who really wants to have one? Pakistan surely doesn't want one that much I can say. Because if the issue of Kashmir is settled Pakistani ISI and polity will be jobless. We must understand this. Pakistan's interest is not in solving the issue but in keeping it burning and live. That is the sole reason not an inch of progress has been made in all these 69 years on the table of talks. As such we should keep on talking for international show and sake but should expect nothing out of it.

Kashmiri leaders have nothing to gain if the issue of Kashmir is settled because it will reduce their importance (and packages) too. If they were really interested in being peacefully integrated to India there wouldn't be any article 370 today. Just talk of review or removal of article 370 and see the reaction! Leaders of all hue and cry in Kashmir, however bitter enemies they may be internally, are all at consensus that Article 370 must remain and must not be meddled with. In reality it means that you treat us as your state as far as funds and development packages are concerned but leave us aloof as far  as demography and usage is concerned. the safety and security of the people of Kashmir is in any case your responsibility because its a state of India. Do you see the double game of Kashmiri leaders?

If there is peace and settlement in the valley what will they negotiate with the Indian government?

Then there are separatists whose agenda is to get Azadi. In a way theirs is a valid mission because common Kashmiri is fed up of this ping- pong being played by India, Pakistan and Kashmiri leaders on the table of Kashmir. But India can never afford to have an independent Kashmir that's friendly with Pakistan in its neighborhood. It will be a great threat to our security. And surely enough Pakistan will look up to creating some new trouble.

So the only real beneficiaries of a peaceful Kashmir are:

The people of India: Because there tax money is being utilized to safeguard and maintain whatever law n order requirements are there in the valley.

The people of J&K: Because they are the true sufferers of any disturbances and not able to live a normal life.

The Government of India : Because a lot of energy, resources and attention is invested in Kashmir politics and a disturbed valley is a thorn in our neck.

We must see that our stake is higher than anybody else. Therefore, we must put in more efforts than anybody else.
I have to suggest following line of action:

1.The solution is possible only through diplomatic and political prowess and of course through political will.

2. First n foremost we have to find a leader in the valley who can counter Pakistani propaganda effectively and who, in the long run, can help us do away with the Article 370. 

3. Outwardly, We have to involve all stakeholders (Kashmiri leaders, Separatists,  Pakistan etc) in peace talks, pretty well knowing that nothing is going to come out of it. These people neither have any solution nor they want it. They only seek importance which should be given to them for the time being.

4. We have to see whether we can separate Jammu n Ladakh from the valley. It is the valley that is adjacent to Pakistan and most disturbed. Jammu n Ladakh region should be separated and be made into a separate state if possible.

5. We have to bring Pakistan on the defensive which we have not done all these years. The steps like Baluchistan are a good initiative. We should also stake our claim on POK on whichever international forums possible as actually it is ours legally.

6. As an eventuality, we should keep preparing for another war with Pakistan.

The whole saga reminds me of one she'r:

तारीख की आँखों ने वो दौर भी देखा है।
लमहों ने ख़ता की  थी, सदियों ने सजा पाई।।

Here is the link for the book:
http://koausa.org/storm/doc/storm.pdf

Who is most communal in India?

Congress seems to be on the wrong side of fate in its second tenure. It is making such mistakes and that too in succession that for the first time in independent India’s history, it really seems to be confused. First it goofed up the issue related to the age of Gen V.K.Singh. And now a terminal mistake of stopping Mr. Rushdi from attending Jaipur Lit Festival. Mr. Rushdi has already come & gone a no. of times after ‘ The Satanic Verses’ was banned in India in 1988. Nothing happened. This time also he simply was an invitee of the festival & was coming around as a noted literary figure. People of India have already gotten over the satanic verses controversy.


But Congress, in the light of ensuing elections, miscalculated everything. They thought by stopping Rushdi, they will be able to score something with Muslims of India. Earlier these planks would work wonderfully because Muslims were having no other party to look up to. Hence any issue or non-issue related to Muslim faith, when given a communal shade, was a sure vote catcher. But now things have changed substantially. There are other parties who have played the same card and played it rather smartly. As a result the Muslim community of this country has realized the necessity to see through the claims & games of such political parties.

Congress, especially the kinds of Digvijay Singhs etc. are not willing to accept this reality. They are just not able to see beyond minority/majority.

Now that you have stopped Salman Rushdi from even video conferencing, people of this country are asking what was wrong with so called fundamentalist organizations when they opposed MF Hussein. After all it was also a case of hurting the religious sentiment of a community. You see, a government can not act in a partisan manner.

The Congress has exposed itself blatantly by showing a soft corner to the fundamentalist elements of one community. Now its cover of being a secular party will never have any sympathizers. Fools of course will have their own choices.

In my view Congress has been the most communal party of India. Others have only reacted to its vote bank politics.

Do we need so many political parties?

The Indian polity is at a crucial juncture today. There are so many political parties & so many different combinations that there is no clarity as to who stands where? Time & again it is proving counterproductive for the health of Indian Parliamentary System.


Ours is a multi party system. Given to the diverse culture of our country, probably, we have adapted the multi party system so that enough representation is made for the regional aspirations. However it is now creating a bottleneck for every progressive step.

There are regional parties in North, South, East, West, … who are at best traders & brokers. Their sole idea of politics is to score some seats here & there & then trade heavily for the support they will offer to the ruling party.

Then there are pocket parties like Shivsena, MNS, NCP, AIADMK, Lok Janshakti etc. whose agenda more or less is governed by one man’s agenda who happens to be the Supremo.

Does India need so many political parties at all? After all, a political party is supposed to be formed on the basis of an ideology. It is expected to have a clear stand on all the issues of national importance. It must have, at the minimum, an economic as well as a foreign policy model for the country.

US, UK, & some other good democracies have two party system. Both these parties have clearly defined ideologies & a clear political stand in all matters of national interest. Hence it is easy for the general public to chose. It’s either A or B. There are not any hung parliaments. There are not any individual agendas over the national one.

We can not have only two parties but we need to see how many more we need? The politics of coalition is no politics at all in my view. It’s the politics of convenience rather. It’s a politics of blackmail too. Did CPM support congress for any ideological alignment in the previous tenure? Or even today, Does Mamta has any ideological alliance with the Congress?

In my view, Indian polity should have 4 parties at the most because India has seen four types of thoughts after independence:

Left & Extreme left: Primarily represented by CPI & CPM who are driven by Marxist principles.

Right & Extreme Right : It is a mix of Hindu Nationalism + Religion + Opposition to Minority politics of Congress. The leading protagonist is BJP. Others are like Shivsena etc. There is also what is generally called as Sangh Parivar.

Centre : Represented by The Congress Party. Nobody knows exactly what it is but it is partly left & partly right, so to say. The best definition in my view would be “Anything that keeps me in the Centre of power is my ideology. Whatever gets me vote in the elections is my ideology.”

Socialist thought proposed by Dr. Lohia : It is different than socialism. It is possibly least talked about & much less understood. But this was an original thought. In the international parlance, the word Socialism is used more or less interchangeably with Marxism & Communism. But Dr. Lohia’s Socialist party was absolutely away from Marxism or Communism. This may not be known to many. At least I was mot knowing it myself before I went into depth of it. Dr. Lohiya was an original thinker & his was an ideology born out of ground realities of India. He, from the very beginning, believed that both capitalism as well as communism would prove counter productive in the long run for India. And he was dead against the Nehruvian kind of Socialism (or Congressism), in which the daily expense on PM in those days was Rs 25000/- per day when the average expense of a common man was “three anna’. (He had raised this issue vehemently & Nehru had to demure with some flimsy explanations in the parliament).

In my view all the parties will belong to one of the four above. Every party should see which ideology is nearest to them & they should align themselves to it.

But given to the kind political parties are & the fact that they have tasted blood after being coalition partners they will never let this happen. However, sooner or later this will be a necessity. It will be same necessity like Jan Lokpal & the way to get it also will be “Public Movement “ only.

Who is afraid of Lokpal

Who is afraid of Lokpal ?


In fact the whole political class is unwilling to bring the Lokpal. They are all afraid of a strong Lokpal. It may seem that Congress is soft & BJP is aggressive yet it is just a matter of political convenience that BJP is putting up such a facade. Had they been in power things would have been radically different.

The whole issue of Lokpal has three aspects:

1. Why politicians are so afraid of a strong anti corruption body on whom they may not have any control?

2. What Team Anna is up to ?

3. Whether a Lokpal as envisaged by Team Anna will really be able to curb corruption?

It’s anybody’s guess as to why politicians are so afraid of a strong investigative agency.

Elections are fought over borrowed money. There are pre pole alliances with a ulterior motive. Many a businessmen see elections as an investment opportunity. They lend money to political parties in order to reap rich returns afterwards. There is also a third angle – that of the bureaucrat. The bureaucrat comes into picture once a party’s government is established. The businessman asks favors from the politician, the bureaucrat facilitates the avenues & all three of them prosper at the cost of public money. This is the type of corruption which has basically taken root in the independent India. In defense deals, in blue chip licenses, in the award of Government contracts, in the allocation of industrial or civil lands, you name it. Everywhere you will find this vicious combine at the root.

Now if there is a strong & independent agency in place, this combine may not work. The syndicated &, almost organized way of usurping public money will be threatened. There may be early arrests. There may be timely filing of charge sheets. There may really be a logical conclusion and punishments in the scams like CWG, Adarsh , 2G, Bofors, Chara Ghotala, and so many of them which were simply investigated & are being investigated even today.

This is what makes them afraid of the idea of Lokpal.

The possibility of manipulating the course of enquiry is the major way out for the politician today. As of now, the chief investigative agency is under the government & the government is dependent on the support of allies. Hence anyone who has the right connections can easily manipulate, mislead or delay the course of investigation. In fact for a very long time no progress will be possible however big the scam may be. Today, no Politician worth his salt is afraid of law. That there is no respect for law is already known, but what is really annoying is they are not even afraid. You just see the body language of some of our politicians. Audacity is the word that is written all over. They have become such an artistic dodgers that they feel it would be almost impossible to nab them whatever they do. Hence, the very idea that someone can take action against them sueo-moto … or some authority is beyond their influence is just too frightening for them.

On the other hand team Anna has definitely given rise to a very important movement in the country, but they do not seem to have a vision. Their actions so far have put them in the category of “Reactionary” at best. Theirs is a strong Anti-Government Stand. They have proposed a Lokpal who will be above every constitutional body but there are not enough checks if this Lokpal acts pre judicially. God forbid, if such a Lokpal becomes a Frankenstein later. Therefore, instead of combating with the government, team Anna would do well to take more pains about the provisions of their bill, organize public debates all over the country and make the people of this country more aware of their overall vision.

The Lokpal bill can happen through public participation only. It can never happen through politics or politicians. For 43 years or so it could not take shape because it has a direct conflict of interests with the politician. If it wouldn’t be so, long back it would have come into force.

The way to get a Strong Lokpal is to give a clear vision, hope and conviction to the people of this country that yes, it is possible to achieve a corruption free society in India.

Now, the million dollar question: Whether any such bill will be able to achieve its goal? That is, whether creation of Lokpal will really be able to eradicate the menace of corruption from the Indian society. Team Anna has made it clear that they do not expect Lokpal to be able to root out the corruption, but they definitely envisage it to ‘act as a deterrent’.

Actually corruption as a phenomenon is ubiquitous throughout the world. However, certain societies like the Europian ones (not all of them), have it to such a low level that the general public, by & large, is unaffected. People generally are sure that no one will take away their lawful due from them. On the other hand nations like Egypt, Libiya, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India are high in corruption index . North Korea, Somalia Afganistan etc. are toppers. Do you see a pattern here ?

Basically corruption erupts from insecurity. Corruption evolves out of low self esteem. Corruption is a result of ‘gross inequality’ in the society. Worse if it has remained for centuries. That’s what has happened to India too. We remained under threat for a very long time. Hence, when we got the independence, we became rampant. It was freedom to choose our own course but we turned it into the ‘freedom to become as much corrupt as possible’.

Hence no amount of law can curb the corruption in India. Of course a bill & thereafter an authority like Lokpal is a welcome initiative, but the real difference will happen only if India has a visionary leader. A second Gandhi sort, who can move the millions through his shear courage of conviction. We, as a country, badly need to regain our lost glory. We produce Kalmadis & Rajas because in the heart of our hearts, we are a very insecure people. We are a rich country, mind you. We do not lack resources. But we do not have enough equality. The opportunity for living & growing is not well distributed so to say. Hence we are often tempted to choose the short cut. People choose short cuts when the faith in the straight but longer rout is lost.

We need to attack this root cause. The menace of inequality & lack of equal opportunity in the Indian society. Then the corruption will automatically be taken care. And for this purpose we need a visionary leader.