Last Saturday I was at the Singapore Club( I am on an official visit ) and had an animated discussion with an old friend, a member of the service fraternity, an English Major settled in Singapore.

Over glasses of  beer the Major mentioned that many writers and poets were returning the awards bestowed on them by the Indian government, on the plea that with Narendra Modi at the helm of affairs, intolerance had crept in the Indian society. He wondered what was the motive as he could not  recollect a single instance over a 100 years where an award bestowed on an individual for excellence was returned in England. I asked him as to what he felt about all these incidents. He had a crisp answer and clearly articulated" Man, this is an orchestrated demand and these men do not have the honor of the Indian nation in mind".

This is the opinion of a foreignor, who is not attached to any political party or system in India. I began a look at history and could not find a single instance of an award being returned in any country.  The fact is the writers and so called men of letters did a great disservice to India by returning awards, bestowed on them.

I further had a look at some of the awardees and was shocked at what came before me. Take the case of Ms Leela Samson. At one time she headed  3 prestigious centres of creative art simultaneously- Kalakshetra Foundation, Sangeet Natak Akademi and Central Board of Film Certification. She was evicted from all these 3 appointments one by one and had an axe to grind. She was a protege of the Congress party. 

Before I write anything further I will quote  Kerala's renowned lady litterateur P Valsala who commented that the awards were returned by those who bought them and there is big politics behind this drama. 

I am also reminded of watching the Urdu poet Munnawar Rana holding a blank cheque before the TV camera and grandly announcing that he was "ready" to return the monetary benefit that came with the reward. I ask, is this the way to return a monetary benefit? why could not this man just post the cheque to the Sahitiya Kala Akademi? This man also announced that he was ashamed to go to Pakistan after the killing of a Muslim in Dadri in UP.  I wonder whether  Rana felt any sense of shame when Hindus who came on a visit to India refused to go back to Pakistan as they felt insecure and scared? Obviously not as Rana was playing a game with  his political masters in the back.

The fact is that all the awardees who have returned the awards have not returned the monetary compensation that came with the award. This shows the hollow nature of the protest movement and is a clear sign that all this is just smoke and there is an invisible hand behind this entire drama of returning awards.

Take the case of Ganesh Devy, who returned his Sahitya Akademi award. This man recieved funds to the tune of 12 crores of which the Ford foundation played a big part. After the government tightened the screws on these foundations  Devy woke up to "intolerence" in Indian society after the BJP came to power.

The real reason for returning the awards is something else and not the so called intolerance seen by them. Look at the film Industry, this is completely dominated by the Mafia from Pakistan and Dubai. This was brought out by RN Singh yesterday on prime time on the IBN news channel. RN Singh is a senior officer ( now retired ) from the Indian Intelligence Bureau. He mentioned the case of one film superstar who thought it fit to articulate that India was heading towards an intolerant  society. A per Singh, this same Super Star was dancing at the party of the Don, Dawood Ibrahim in Dubai after the  Mumbai blasts.

What can you expect? The fact is as brought out by Chetan Bhagat in his address at Indore on 3 November  that had Modi and Amit Shah been from Doon School, such things like returning of awards would not have happened. In a way, I think Bhagat is correct as the so called men of letters  are chagrined that their mentor the Congress party is defeated , nay decimated by a man who is not 'educated' in the classical sense. The Congress party and their ilk have not been able to stomach their complete rout in in the 2014 election, hence resort to drama of returning awards. Prestige of the country be dammed.

I hope readers can see through the entire game. It is a curse of history that Nehru and the Congress ( with blessings of Gandhi) came to power after 1947 and reduced the state to an appeaser of minorities. I have yet to understand how the death of one Muslim and 3 rationalists has prompted these pseudo secular writers to retrn their awards. Not one writer returned any  award when 10,000 Sikhs were butchered in Delhi, with the Congress party in power. Reports now suggest that orders for the massacre was given  by the highest authority of the Congress party.

Retrning awards is self defeating and this has polarized Indian society, not Narendra Modi. These men are just pseudo secular and have insulted the Indian people by returning the awards. I do believe that there is always light at the end of the tunnel and these men will have to pay for this sin of insulting the Indian nation.

In 1964 a small time cartoonist decided to enter politics.  He was Balasaheb Thackeray who founded the Shiv Sena. His game was pure politics and a desire to up his status, as he began by championing the cause of  the Marathi middle class. The party had some appeal and became the dominant force in the city of Mumbai. Balasaheb was not averse to extortion and threats. He also collected a set of goons who went around intimidating and even beating up all those who opposed him. To catch the sympathy of the Marathi " Manoos" or middle class, he began an agitation against South Indians. The Shiv Sena began to attack Udupi hotels and people from South India and soon won recognition as a " champion" of the Marathi "Manoos". 

Unfortunately for Balasaheb, the traditions of tolerance and nationalism are strong in Maharashtra and the Shiv Sena could not increase its base outside Mumbai and West Maharashtra. The Congress party remained the dominant force and for all practical purpose Balasaheb had to take a back seat.  To become more relevant, the Shiv Sena now began to wear the coat of Hindutva and allied itself with the BJP. This did not change the equation and both the BJP and Shiv Sena tasted power only( in late nineties) once in almost 50 years  since the formation of the Sena.

Balasaheb and other Shiv Sena leaders despite wearing the garb of Hindutva and nationalism, began a systematic targetting of North Indians, particularly from Bihar and UP. This facet of the Shiv Sena policy has never been explained as to why the Shiv Sena first attacked the South Indians and later the migrants in Mumbai from Bihar and UP, who were all Hindus. This showed that the Shiv Sena was in reality only a party of goons and chose to pay lip service to nationalism and Hindutva. The purpose was to somehow become relevant in entire Maharashtra. Unfortunately, except for Mumbai, the Sena writ ran nowhere and the Marathi people rejected the sectarian and divisive politics of Balasaheb and the Shiv Sena. Repeated defeats at the hustings perhaps disillusioned Balasaheb, but he put up a brave front.

Balasaheb  picked up an anti Pakistan line also and hoped this would catch the eye of the people of Maharashtra. But here also he was barking up the wrong tree as except for making headlines like digging up the cricket pitch in Wankhede Stadium, the Sena had no coherent policy and remained away from the seat of government. It's alliance partner the BJP did not subscribe to the sectarian and parochial policy of the Sena and a parting was on the cards. This happened in the 2014 election and the Sena fighting on its own steam won just about 60 seats in a house of 288. This shows that the brand of politics indulged in by the Sena has very few takers.  Moreover many in Maharashtra ask as to how a party that claims to be nationalist and  has a plank of Hindutva, can at the same time attack Indians from other states.

The demise of Balasaheb has not changed the Shiv Sena approach. They still talk of nationalism and their recent act of throwing ink and blackening the face of the man who was launching a book by Kasuri, the ex- Pak foreign minister on the plea that Indian soldiers are being killed in Kashmir is a case in point. It served no purpose when the Sena has not given up its demand to stop migration from UP and Bihar to Maharashtra. This hits at the root of the Indian nation, but the Sena now under the son of Balasaheb, Uddhav is unable to see the light.

Rahul Gandhi is a unique character in Indian politics. He often reminds  of a chief without a fighting force. A  lone ranger, he is trying to make his way, where all roads seem to be in a blocked mode. He is trying to navigate valiantly but without much success. He is the beneficiary of the leadership of one of the world's oldest political party- Indian National Congress. His mother is the current President of the Congress party and every one knows that it is a matter of time before he is anointed as its next President. However nothing seems to be going the smooth way for either Rahul or the party.

Background :

Rahul Gandhi is the son of Rajiv Gandhi, the grandson of the formidable Indira Gandhi and the great grandson of  Jawaharlal Nehru, all three of them became prime ministers of India and  the latter two died in office. Between them they held the PM's post for about four decades and helped shaped India's destiny in a very significant way. Their hold on the masses was considerable. The Congress party which fought for India's freedom gradually became their family organization. The democratic Nehru's heirs became a political dynasty. The broad based Congress party at the time of India's independence has over the decades become a family owned or ruled fiefdom. Rahul is its latest member ready to inherit the mantle of the party's leadership. However this act of passing the baton from the mother to the son gets being postponed since a few years and has been once again differed till next year. It clearly indicates that the going is not all that smooth for Rahul to take over.

The Challenge :

Young Indians seem to be moving away from dynastic politics. At least that is the impression one gets while judging the dismal performance of the Congress party in the 2014 elections and thereafter. It was a strong reason, though corruption in the UPA coalition  was perhaps the most compelling reasons why voters voted against Congress. The present ruling dispensation is led by a very strong charismatic leader who is everything that Rahul isn't. 

The 5' 7" Rahul is born in 1970 and entered politics in 2004 and since then is the MP from his late father's constituency Amethi. His sister Priyanka comes out to campaign only for him and mother Sonia Gandhi. Rahul comes out as a shy, reluctant, average speaker possessing limited vocabulary, mild mannered who seems all the time to be trying and trying and has yet to taste success.  Modi comes out as an willing, aggressive, effective orator with a brilliant vocabulary, who has tasted success and is hungry for more.

Style :

A distinct feature of Rahul's style is that he goes into frequent hibernations every  few weeks. Then suddenly parachutes at a few places, makes a few statements only to vanish again from the public view. This does not enable him to build a bond with his dwindling  party's supporters. I do not think he has ever been arrested for leading a procession or has come on the streets to enthuse his party workers. His protected style therefore comes out as arm chair style of politics. Led from closed rooms. 

When pitched against a hands down aggressive leader of the ruling party, this withdrawn style of leadership is bound to fail because it suffers tremendously by comparison and content. Like in golf, many would give him a handicap provided he was seen trying hard. There seems to be some force holding him back from going all out. The Congress is at its nadir in its history and is also on verge of being reduced to a state of vegetative existence. At such times the quality of leadership should be superlative. But what is the party offering  Rahul Gandhi  or what is he expecting from them.

Problem :

It is now coming out that Rahul's leadership is being resented by established and well entrenched senior Congress leaders well past the age of sixty years. Congress in fact has too many of these ageless leaders. They would be uncomfortable with Rahul at the helm and would in fact stand ignored. They could form a bloc of disgruntled leaders whose nuisance vale could be damaging to the party. The emerging scenario is akin to the time  Indira Gandhi found herself being cornered by veteran Congress leaders led by the octogenarian Morarjee Desai in thelate 1960's. Her ststure could see her through but not before she split the Congress into two and in the process isolated the veterans. She then led the Congress and remained its undisputed leader for nearly sixteen years.

Can Rahul repeat Indira's feat? Looks extremely doubtful mainly because Rahul lacks the charisma and skill of Indira. It is going to be a long drawn battle before Rahul can aspire to become the leader of the party. The passage will be rough and many side battles will be fought openly or covertly. It can be reasonably assumed that the younger lot will go with Rahul and the elder lot will want Sonia to continue as long as possible. No one wants to lose power at any age, more so in politics. 

This uncertainty is telling on Rahul. He is not able to emerge as a full time leader and in fazt is seen as a part time leader. He appears and vanishes like comets. The visibility is momentary and  impact is also lost. When he is not sure of cooperation from senior leaders he is not able to take initiative. In the process his image is not getting established. BJP and especially Modi have encashed this aspect to the fullest and  have succeeded in portraying him as a novice in politics who is surviving because of dynasty. The more time Rahul takes to exert himself the more this image will get strengthened.

Action:

The internal resistance within the Congress will continue as that is the nature of politicians, but strong leaders can overcome it. However the Congress is in a very weak position and  unless it wins in some states of significance Rahul will not be in a position to exert himself. He has to show victories to raise his stature and uplift his image. It is easier said than done. Modi and BJP are not going to make it easy for him.

Rahul has to be pro active if he wants to take over the leadership of the Congress. He must fight for it and win it. It will boost his image as a go getter and show him as a decisive person. This will teach him how to plan, identify persons. make strategies and counter moves and above all take tough decisions. After all one whom the party wants to project as a future PM cannot be a goody goody person. He has to learn to survive in the cut throat of Indian politics. He does not have to look far. He can learn many lessons from the one who ridicules him the most. 

The Congress party is at crossroads today. It is at its lowest ebb in its history. It is led by a person who was a reluctant politician. How long can she lead. The next generation has to move in. Because it is a dynasty led party it is going to be Rahul by present indications. He therefore has to show grit and accept the post sooner than later. Or Priyanka is not too far of and Modi could be in for a long haul. Rahul has to lead upfront now or never.

I have given an account of the Kargil war, where timidity of the Vajpayee government allowed the war to become a stalemate. Obviously India achieved nothing after the Kargil war. But there is one war in 1971, which led to the creation of Bangladesh and was a decisive victory for India and yet India allowed the advantage of victory to slip away despite the fact that we held 93000 Pakistan army POWs . How did this happen that a victorious India allowed the fruits of victory to slip away from its fingers?  The answer lies in the gullibility of Indira Gandhi and the astute skill of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the Pakistani leader.

After the creation of Bangladesh, Indian army held 93000 Pakistani soldiers as POW. This was the time to strike a hard bargain on Kashmir and ask that the present Line of Control be converted to an international border. I am told this was agreed to by Bhutto in a secret talk with Indira Gandhi, but later Pakistan denied it. In fact in the Simla accord, India agreed to discuss the Kashmir problem with Pakistan. Bhutto had assured Indira Gandhi that this was just a ploy to please hardliners in Pakistan and he would soon move forward on Kashmir. Bhutto was working to a plan and during this meeting he gave away nothing and in turn was able to get his POWs back. This was a great achievement. Indira Gandhi was outsmarted by Bhutto, who not only got his POWs back, but also made India accept that a problem in Kashmir existed. Rarely has a victor at a conference been so misled as Indira Gandhi was during the Simla meeting.

In hindsight, India frittered away a great opportunity to settle the Kashmir issue. India should have insisted on a Kashmir solution and agreed for a return  of the POWs only after that. By handing over the POWs, India lost all leverage on Kashmir. in effect the Simla accord was a blunder. Whatever Bhutto agreed privately is not recorded and now we can say that Bhutto played his cards in an adroit manner.

In fact after the victory in Bengal, the war should have been continued. Additional troops from Bengal would have been available and an attack on Kashmir was a necessity.. Pakistan was in the throes of a crisis and Yahya Khan had resigned, it was an opportune moment to try and solve the Kashmir issue.  History records that India failed and today the Kashmir issue is alive as ever.