# OPINION : Tuesday, July 07, 2020. 8:02. PM. : 2215

1. #Himalayan Blunder: How Nehru Screwed India at the UN and Strengthened China : 22-06-2020 : > Rakesh Krishnan Simha : Media Report

#While there is no escaping from the fact that it was Nehru who paved the way for China’s inclusion in the UN Security Council at India’s expense, he was also responsible for creating a positive image of China among Asian leaders and eventually among Westerners.

India has been elected as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for a two-year term. The credit for this should rightly go to Jawaharlal Nehru. It was because India’s first Prime Minister rejected the Brahmastra of permanent membership – not once but twice – that today Indians are able to enjoy these opportunities to get elected as a non-permanent member. The US, Russia, UK, France and China constitute the elite P5 or the five permanent members.

The crimesheet of Nehru is longer than most people imagine and would easily fill a book. In fact, there is a small but dedicated subculture that keeps adding to Nehru’s list of crimes against India. But for now let’s focus on what is arguably the Congress leader’s greatest crime – the Himalayan blunder of rejecting of a permanent seat at the UN Security Council.

1. 1950-American Offer :

In August 1950, just three years after India became independent, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, India’s ambassador to the US, and interestingly the Prime Minister’s sister, wrote to Nehru from Washington: “One matter that is being cooked up in the State Department (the US equivalent of the Foreign Ministry) should be known to you. This is the unseating of China as a Permanent Member in the Security Council and of India being put in her place….Last night I heard from Marquis Childs, an influential columnist of Washington, that (John Foster) Dulles has asked him on behalf of the State Department to build up public opinion along these lines. I told him our attitude and advised him to go slow in the matter as it would not be received with any warmth in India.”

Nepotism and incompetence are two sides of the same coin. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit had put national interest in the back seat. She was misleading the Americans by claiming that Indians wouldn’t be interested in permanent membership.

Nehru wrote back: “In your letter you mention that the State Department is trying to unseat China as a Permanent Member of the Security Council and to put India in her place. So far as we are concerned, we are not going to countenance it. That would be bad from every point of view. It would be a clear affront to China and it would mean some kind of a break between us and China. I suppose the State Department would not like that, but we have no intention of following that course. We shall go on pressing for China’s admission in the UN and the Security Council…..India because of many factors, is certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the Security Council. But we are not going in at the cost of China.”

Nehru not only suffered from delusions that he was a world leader, he also had a callous disregard for India’s national security interests. Both sister and brother colluded to screw India over. While the Americans, Russians, Chinese and the Pakistanis were arming up, Nehru was talking of disbanding the Indian Army, saying the police forces were enough for defending the country’s borders.

2. Backstab in Tibet :

Tibet had enjoyed the status of an independent country since 1912 when it broke free of Chinese rule. It was a huge buffer between India and China, and it is elementary geopolitics that having a buffer state between China would be advantageous to India. However, India did nothing to strengthen Tibet and repeatedly ignored the Lhasa government’s requests for weapons. In fact, Nehru’s position from the beginning was to treat Tibet as a future vassal or province of China.

For the historically land hungry Chinese, Nehru’s lack of interest in Tibet was an invitation to prey on the defenceless country. On October 25, 1950, barely two months after India had recklessly spurned the US offer of permanent membership, Peking Radio announced that the process of “liberating” Tibet had begun. A large Chinese force crossed the Sino-Tibetan border on the east and began moving towards Lhasa.

The news of the Chinese invasion of Tibet roused feelings of deep anger in India. The day after the attack, the Indian government addressed a note to China, reminding the Chinese government of its assurances to India that they intended to solve the problem peacefully. To this note, the Chinese sent an angry reply on October 30, saying that Tibet was an internal matter of China and no foreign interference would be tolerated.

Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel called the telegram “an act of gross discourtesy”, and said, “It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language but a potential enemy.” But Nehru remained unruffled and as usual did nothing.

In desperation the Lhasa Government requested India to sponsor Tibet’s case before the United Nations. Nehru was anxious not to create further difficulties in the way of peaceful settlement and the Tibetans were advised that if they wanted to take the case to the UN they should do so direct. It was eventually tiny El Salvador that sponsored the pro-Tibet resolution at the UN.

Shockingly, despite China’s naked aggression against Tibet and a clear snub directed at India, Nehru continued to plead for the admission of the communist country to the United Nations. According to Indian diplomat Subimal Dutt, who was appointed to negotiate with China, Nehru refused to accept what everyone could see – that China was poised to become India’s adversary.

“So far as India was concerned, Nehru did not feel that Peking represented a threat to Indian interests in the foreseeable future. China, he said, would be too preoccupied with her internal problems of economic development, social change and agrarian reform to venture upon any foreign aggression.”

3. 1955 Soviet Offer :

The second offer to include India as a permanent member of the UN Security Council came in 1955, when Nehru was on an official visit to the Soviet Union. Russian Premier Nikolai Bulganin told the Indian side: “While we are discussing the general international situation and reducing tension, we propose suggesting at a later stage India’s inclusion as the sixth member of the Security Council.”

The Russians knew the US had made a similar offer and were therefore making a competing offer so India wouldn’t end up in the American camp. However, Nehru, not exactly the brightest spark, misread the situation. Rejecting Bulganin’s offer, he said, “We are, of course, wholly opposed to it…We feel that this should not be done till the question of China’s admission and possibly of others is first solved. I feel that we should first concentrate on getting China admitted.”

Nehru wasn’t just content with fast forwarding China into the Security Council’s P5 but he was also placing “others” ahead of India’s national security interests. Perhaps, he was thinking of getting Indonesia, Egypt and Yugoslavia admitted first because, hey, India is a country of snake charmers and can wait.

During the same visit, Nehru wrote a note on the 1950 US offer, explaining his stance on India’s admission to the inner sanctum of the United Nations: “….it would be very unfair for a great country like China not to be in the Security Council. We have, therefore, made it clear to those who suggested this that we cannot agree to this suggestion. We have even gone a little further and said that India is not anxious to enter the Security Council at this stage, even though as a great country she ought to be there. The first step to be taken is for China to take her rightful place and then the question of India might be considered separately.”

Sarvepalli Gopal, Nehru’s biographer, confirms: “He rejected the Soviet offer to propose India as the sixth permanent member of the Security Council and insisted that priority be given to China’s admission to the United Nations.”

It seems Nehru was manically obsessed with China, to the point where he was incessantly talking about getting China ushered to the UN high table on a priority basis before India.

But more importantly, since the matter had not been discussed by India’s Parliament, who gave Nehru the right to say “India is not anxious to enter the Security Council”? He was steering India’s foreign affairs without the strategic vision or skills for the job, taking reckless decisions and disdainfully disregarding his own advisors.

Patel warned about the dangers of supporting China at the UN in a note to the Prime Minister: “Outside the Russian camp, we have practically been alone in championing the cause of Chinese entry into the UNO….In spite of this, China is not convinced about our disinterestedness; it continues to regard us with suspicion and the whole psychology is one, at least outwardly, of scepticism, perhaps mixed with a little hostility.”

4. Dragon’s Double Talk :

Even as Nehru was bending backwards and forward to please the Chinese, what exactly was brewing in Beijing? The fact is that the communists were preparing to stab India in the back for a long time. As Dutt observed, “Unfortunately, China’s new leaders were less than enthusiastic in reciprocating Nehru’s gestures of friendship.”

In September 1949, there was strident criticism of Nehru in the controlled Chinese press. A Chinese magazine accused the Prime Minister of India of aiding imperialist designs for the annexation of Tibet and charged him with the “beastly ambition of aggression”.

Another Chinese magazine, the Shanghai Observer, wrote on April 11, 1950, “It is a matter of Nehru weighing his desire for US assistance against his need to assume the hypocritical role of a progressive leader to deceive the Indian people”.

According to Dutt, “These views reflected the general hostility of the Soviet and the Chinese Communist leaders towards India in the period following August 1947. They described Nehru as a tool in the hands of British imperialism. Significantly, the Communist Party of India (CPI) was also extremely critical of Nehru during this period. In reply to a message of greetings from the CPI, Mao Tse-tung cabled on October 19, 1949, “I firmly believe that relying on the brave Communist Party of India and the unity and struggle of all Indian patriots, India will certainly not remain long under the yoke of imperialism and its collaborators. Like free China, a free India will one day emerge as the socialists.

5. Bandung Blunder :

While there is no escaping from the fact that it was Nehru who paved the way for China’s inclusion in the UN Security Council at India’s expense, he was also responsible for creating a positive image of China among Asian leaders and eventually among Westerners.

When the communists led by Mao rolled over China, nearly all Asian countries were alarmed at China’s aggressive backing of communist movements in Asia. They looked up to Nehru and India as a role model, but instead of capitalising on this huge amount of goodwill, Nehru worked hard to ensure that Asian countries became less hostile towards China. This miracle he achieved at the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia.

Initially, several countries, including Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Indonesia, were opposed to China being invited as the communist regime was not recognised. However, they relented on Nehru’s assurance that participation of any country in the conference would not mean its recognition by the other participants.

Dutt recounts how Nehru gayed up the conference and created a new Asian hero. “One of the most frequent among the visitors was Chinese Premier Chou En-lai. It was his first debut in an Asian-African gathering and although he was calm and unruffled, he did not seem quite sure of his position. Nehru took him as a younger brother. During mid-day recesses the two used to walk hand in hand along the streets of Bandung with crowds cheering on both sides.”

Bandung proved to be a windfall opportunity for China to rebrand itself. Chou En-lai assured the representatives of Thailand, Laos and Cambodia of the determination of his government not to interfere in their affairs. He issued a statement to the effect that the Chinese people were friendly to the American people. They did not want a war with the US, and declared China was willing to negotiate with the US on the relaxation of tensions in East Asia, particularly over Taiwan.

6. Chinese Treachery :

Of course, the communists had no peaceful intentions and were simply waiting for China to be nursed back to health after its devastating 40-year long civil war. With Nehru playing the role of the useful idiot, China got the image makeover it so badly wanted. Due to the Indian Prime Minister’s PR efforts, the world began to view China as less of a threat. This eventually led to the US awarding China’s UN seat – which was held by the nationalists in Taiwan – to the communists in mainland China. It was only a matter of time before China would stab India in the back.

When China stealthily occupied Aksai Chin and built a road through it in 1957, Nehru refused to challenge the Chinese and reclaim the lost Indian territory. He told Parliament it was a bleak place where “not a blade of grass grows”. At this, parliamentarian Mahavir Tyagi pointed to the Prime Minister’s bald head saying, “Nothing grows here, should it be cut off or given away to somebody else?”

A novice in strategy, Nehru was way over his head in events he couldn’t begin to understand. He did not realise that grassless Aksai Chin allowed China access to Gilgit-Baltistan, Kashmir and Pakistan. His inaction and refusal to properly equip the Indian Army emboldened the Chinese further. In 1962, more than 80,000 PLA soldiers rolled across the Himalayas, grabbing more Indian land.

7. Overall D minus :

Nehru’s dealings with China – and indeed with all countries – can be described as walking into a minefield with his eyes wide shut. India’s misfortune was that at independence it was saddled with an unelected Prime Minister whose effete personality made him unsuitable for the job. Nehru’s greatest drawback was that he refused to do the hard yards of rebuilding industry, agriculture, education and especially the military that was required for self-defence in a tough neighbourhood. Instead, he was content to perform the easy task of talking endlessly about peace.

As psychologist Jordan Peterson says, “People who don’t have their own houses in order should be very careful about reorganising the world.” He adds that people have things that are more within their personal preview that are more difficult to deal with, and which they are avoiding, and generally the way they avoid them is by adopting pseudo moralistic stances on large scale issues so they look good to their friends and neighbours.

Nehru wanted to look good in front of world leaders, but he ended up like the emperor without clothes. Ironically it was China, which he trusted, that called his bluff.

=================================================================

2. ##In defence of Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Vadra, and no, this is not satire : 6 July, 2020 : Nupur J Sharma : Opindia : Media Report.

##Rahul Gandhi's incompetence has been known. However, it is the same ecosystem that orchestrated or at least attempted to orchestrate a charade of his brilliance for years and continue to do so. So what is changing?

John Kay once said that ‘the people who own the country ought to govern it’. In India, for the longest time, it was the Congress party that owned the country, not the people. The election of Narendra Damodardas Modi bought a tectonic shift in not just the political scene of the country, but also how the people saw themselves. From being treated as chattel, to be used and abused as the first family saw fit, to an empowered majority that chooses to write its own fate.

The defeat of Congress was a jolt that the ecosystem did not expect. When one rules a country for decades, one does not expect for their ‘right’ to be snatched away by the very subjects they assumed to have systematically oppressed for so many years. They genuinely believed that they had perhaps rewired the Indian populace.

They altered history, they fed the people selective information for decades by ensuring that only their minstrels have the right to public books that are taught to children in schools, they launched Soviet style propaganda to demonise the majority population, the Hindus, they got into secret deals with enemies that the people had no idea about and stole trillions from the people because they assumed that the scared ‘praja’ had no agency left to speak up.

When the Congress fell, much of what was fed to the Lutyens intellectual hitmen for hire, their ecosystem, crumbled. The hands that fed them no longer wielded the power that made it possible for them to be fed. They assumed that the Congress would never be dethroned and their gravy train would never stop. They never expected one Narendra Damodardas Modi to shake the very foundation of the political system of the country and expose the rot that was covered up with the collective Omertà.

After 6 years of defending the Congress and blaming the people for not selecting their Knights in shining armour, the ecosystem has now lost its patience, it would seem. At least momentarily. But even in their ire, the dishonesty is rather staggering.

The Wire published an article where they demanded that the ‘Gandhis must vacate the Congress space’. Interestingly, while the headline read Gandhis, the article was focused on the acute shortcomings of Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra.

At the very outset, it was evident that the author’s rant did not stem from genuine introspection of what is wrong with the Congress model of governance, but rather, intense hate for PM Modi that is making him lash out at Rahul and Priyanka – much like a jilter lover.

Rahul Gandhi is not the problem, he is as incompetent as his predecessors, it is the weakening of the ecosystem that is pinching the left

After spending 6 years trying to orchestrate the “coming of age of Rahul Gandhi”, there are sections within the Left ecosystem that are visibly frustrated with him. They are frustrated because Congress not only lost to PM Modi and the BJP In 2014 and 2019, but despite all their antics, there seems to be no way that the Congress can come back to power in 2024. To be fair, that is not Rahul Gandhi’s fault alone. In 2014 when Congress lost to PM Modi, it was not him who was the president of the Congress party, but Sonia Gandhi. Right now as well, it is Sonia who is the president.

Rahul’s incompetence has been known. However, it is the same ecosystem that orchestrated or at least attempted to orchestrate a charade of his brilliance for years and continue to do so. So what is changing? Obviously they knew that Rahul Gandhi was a dud and yet, they pinned their hopes on him for 6 long years.

Essentially, the ecosystem has no problem with the exemplary incompetence of the Congress party or the family leaders. What they do have a problem with is that now, that incompetence is being exposed and challenged. What bothers them is now that exemplary and historic incompetence is for all to see, and that one leader brought about a revolution that dethroned them rather promptly. What bothers them is that because they have been dethroned, the ecosystem does not know who else can sustain them, financially or otherwise.

If Congress still had the resources and the power to sustain the ecosystem, Rahul Gandhi would have still been the Prince Charming who would rescue them. With the ecosystem losing its edge and its unbridled power, that seems to have changed or at least, is showing signs of changing.

1. The Wire article on Rahul Gandhi, its main contentions and why it is important to talk about it :

The Wire article is written by Harish Khare. While his bio introduces himself as just a journalist, there is more to this than meets the eye. He served as the Media Adviser to the Indian Prime Minister’s Office from June 2009 to January 2012 and post that, has worked as Resident Editor and chief of bureau with The Hindu in New Delhi, India.

Being the person who was close to Manmohan Singh and obviously, close to Super PM Sonia Gandhi, that he is the one lashing out at Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi in a publication like The Wire that has served as Rahul Gandhi and Congress’ attack dog, is of significance and must be analysed threadbare.

2. Essentially, the author in The Wire article makes the following assertions:

Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi, whom he calls the ‘bhai-behan-cartel (BBC)’, has foisted a fratricidal internal war in Congress by blaming the ‘senior leaders’. The author further says, “the longer the brother-and-sister duo continue to scuffle within, the much-needed process of democratic recovery and regrouping gets postponed further and further”.

The main reason for the outburst published in The Wire seems to be the order for Priyanka Gandhi Vadra to vacate the government bungalow allotted to them, which they were not entitled to. While blaming Rahul and Priyanka of being reckless and entitled, the author cites an example where he essentially says that the mighty Gandhis have got their priorities all wrong and conflates the concepts of giving to the party as opposed to giving back to the nation they are meant to serve.

The third contention of the author seems to be that the brother-sister duo doesn’t seem to put in an effort to understand why millions and million prefer PM Modi over Gandhi’s Congress. “In particular, the Congress has to unsentimentally comprehend why Modi is able to run away with the deshbhakti ball and (to use American football terminology) get to score a touch-down at his choosing while the Gandhis prove very poor defensive linebackers. Nor has the bhai-behn cartel offered the country any moral reason to shift its allegiance and affection away from Narendra Modi”, the article on The Wire states.

The Wire says, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra have ‘convinced themselves that the ‘old guard’ are a stumbling block in their righteous struggle against Modi’.

His other contention seems to be that Rahul Gandhi refuses to be the Party President and then, on the other hand, refuses to let the reigns go to some non-dynast member either.

The raging hypocrisy and sheer inanity of the assertions are rather stupefying. Let’s examine these assertions one by one.

3. Internal feuds : The making of Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra? :

The author, who happens to be a veteran journalist no less, makes it sound as if the internal feuds in Congress are the fresh making of Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. The truth is, that the Congress party has never really been a united house. There are thousands of incidents, from the time of Nehru to Indira Gandhi and even Sonia Gandhi where internal feuds were really the norm.

K Natwar Singh had himself written an article where he had categorically narrated how Sonia Gandhi did not want him to be the External Affairs Minister because she was being pressured from several quarters, including the Americans. Thereafter, she had accused Natwar of being involved in defence deals rather out of the blue while in a meeting with the Afghanistan President.

It is no secret how Sonia Gandhi hounded and humiliated Maneka Gandhi after the death of Sanjay Gandhi. To a point where she was not allowed to eat at the same table and evidently, this was done because Sonia Gandhi did not want Maneka to get a share of the property. This is not an assertion from thin air but a tale narrated by Maneka Gandhi herself.

Further, who doesn’t remember how PV Narasimha Rao was treated?

With his dead body being torn apart by dogs?

Or who doesn’t remember how Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi tore up ordinances signed by Manmohan Singh as the PM, publicly during a press conference?

Who has not heard of the feuds between Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi?

Or how Congress leaders have been treated like dirt by every member of the Nehru-Gandhi clan?

Or who doesn’t remember how Nehru actually became the prime minister and who was sidelined?

In such a scenario, blaming Rahul Gandhi or Priyanka Gandhi Vadra for being the first to create internal feud is ridiculous. Congress has never been sans internal feuds and there is a good reason for it – for anyone dynasty to hold power within the party, internal feuds are a necessary evil that keeps even half-capable people at check.

In fact, this article in The Wire itself seems to be the product of the internal feud between the Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra clan and the Sonia Gandhi faction. That can be evidenced from the fact that all the blame in this article, even for their stand during Galwan stand-off has been shifted to Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi has not even been mentioned once.

The only thing that Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi can be faulted for, perhaps, is that their lack of intelligence is why they are not being able to control the narrative even for their own party, despite several pens for hire willing to build their image up. The problem here is the urge to market a bad product. Not that it has never been done before.

4. Giving to the party confused with giving to the nation :

While the author rues that Rahul Gandhi has been unable to understand why millions and millions of people support PM Modi and not Gandhi’s Congress, the author tragically writes an entire paragraph that makes no sense at all except to say that the current generations seems to have lost their street credo. Even more tragically, the rant seems to confuse giving to the political party with giving to the nation, for the nation’s benefit.

5. Excerpt from The Wire article :

In this paragraph, the author says that Motilal Nehru gave his palatial bungalow to Mahatma Gandhi’s Congress and thus, firmly lodged itself in the national imagination. On the other hand, the current Congress uses tasteless language to defend itself after Priyanka being dislodged from her illegal government accommodation.

The author really has no right to blame Rahul Gandhi or even Priyanka Gandhi Vadra because he seems to belong to the exact, degenerated mindset that the Gandhi family, including Rahul and Priyanka belong to. The author here conflates giving a bungalow to the party as a great service to the nation. That is not much different from the entitlement that every scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family feels.

A service to the party, is a service to the nation per them. A service to the Gandhi family is an ode to the over 1 billion people of India. A victory for the Gandhis is a victory of the people of India. This is exactly what Rahul believes but he is not the first. Evert leader of Congress has exactly the same mindset. And thus, for the author to blame Rahul and Priyanka for being exactly like their parents or grandparents seems a little harsh.

6. The tantrum – Why does Modi manage to run with the ‘deshbhakti’ plank :

Well, maybe because he genuinely is one?

The issue with Congress has always been tweaking its core ideology per the political winds that might shape elections. During the Indira Gandhi regime, they wanted to protect cows. During the Sonia Gandhi regime, they wanted to bring in the Communal Violence Bill that would reduce every Hindu into a perpetrator, facts be damned, and shield every Muslim as victim, facts be damned, during a communal riot. During the Rahul Gandhi reign, they allied with Islamists and Naxals. Not that it was new. Sonia Gandhi too shared the political bed with Islamists and Naxals, heck, Sonia Gandhi even accepted money from China and Soros linked foundations during her regime.

Prime Minister Modi manages to run with the ‘deshbhakti’ plank because the BJP, in face of loss or victory has remained rather steadfast in their political ideology and vision for the nation. Congress on the other hand are like political mistresses who change their ideology much like one would change clothes.

However, to blame Rahul or Priyanka Gandhi for their intellectual or ideological debauchery is rather unfair. It is akin to blaming them for running a family business just how their father or mother or grandparents ran it. And that is what Congress is, really. A family business.

The issue here is that the ecosystem does not seem to have the strength to question Sonia Gandhi or even the Congress party for its history that has often compromised national security. What they care about is lashing out at Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka because that is easier to do compared to looking inwards.

7. Old guard not a stumbling block, new guard is? So says The Wire :

The Wire says, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra have ‘convinced themselves that the ‘old guard’ are a stumbling block in their righteous struggle against Modi’. This, per the author is a massive error in judgement.

While at this point, this would seem like a planted article by the Sonia gang to subjugate the Rahul gang, the dishonestly emanating from this piece is still staggering. Currently, it is Sonia Gandhi who is the President of the Party. When Congress lost to Narendra Modi in 2014, it was Sonia Gandhi. Interestingly, the article does not mention Sonia Gandhi even once, other than in the featured image of the article.

Rahul Gandhi is completely useless. So is Priyanka Gandhi. However, the old guard has no halo around their heads either. In 2014, it was the old guard along with rants from the new guard that cost Congress its power. Today, during the China stand-off, the party is headed by Sonia Gandhi, though the party is equally enamoured with Rahul Gandhi. Neither of them managed to form one sentence that actually made sense if even translated into a sentiment that favoured the interests of the nation.

Painting Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi as imbeciles and the old guard as Knights is unfair. Both the factions are equally mentally decelerated, it would seem.

Besides, what Congress and its playthings probably don’t understand is that the Congress is not newly incompetent now. They were always incompetent. They remained in power because earlier, there was no leader with the brute courage of conviction like that of PM Modi. All it took, was one leader to shake their entire foundation. And if the foundation, build over decades, can be shaken in one election, then it is certainly a foundation that ought to be demolished with dynamite.

Interestingly, while whining about the incompetence of Rahul Gandhi, the author also rues that Rahul is unwilling to accept responsibility of becoming the President of the Party. After an entire article of bashing the poor man who is simply following his DNA, the author wonders why he does not want to become the President.

Perhaps the author would do well to remember that in this regard too, he is only following his mamma. Sonia Gandhi refused to become the Prime Minister when she could, however, ensured that she was the ‘Super PM’ while Manmohan Singh rightly got the heat for his incompetence. Rahul Gandhi is exactly the same. He would want to ruin the nation from the shadows while someone else, who is merely a puppet, takes the fall for it.

This critique of Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra is unfair. Unfair not because it is wrong, per se. But because everything that Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra are doing wrong, has always been wrong with the Congress. Vested interests have been too scared to call it out because it was always the Congress that fed them.

The reason these voices are becoming sparsely audible today is not because the Congress has deteriorated, it is because the ecosystem is biting the very hands that fed them, because the hands no longer wield the power anymore to sustain a massively expensive and parasitic ecosystem. Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi are imbeciles. They are selfish and clueless and wildly anti-India since their personal interests reign supreme. But, so was every other Congress leader. So was every other scion of the Nehru-Gandhi clan.

It is not the incompetence of the Congress party or its latest fools that angers the ecosystem, it is the fact that the people have seen through the facade finally and the gravy train has stopped.

===============================================================

3. ###Long Live Dalai Lama campaign launched as a protest against illegal occupation of Tibet by China and its attempts to tarnish Dalai Lama's image : 01-Jul-2020 : Organiser : Media Report.

A worldwide social media campaign has been launched by freedom fighters of Tibet and followers of Dalai Lama against Communist China. The #LongLiveDalaiLama campaign is against China's efforts to legitimize the illegal occupation of Tibet since 1959. The campaign is also to protest against China's attempts to tarnish the image of Tibetan Buddhist and Spiritual leader Dalai Lama.

Social media users who are part of the campaign are also venting their anger against China for its attempts to dishonour the Tibetan holy institutions like Panchen Lama. A social media user expressing his anger wrote, "Let us defeat the Chinese efforts to legitimize the occupation of Tibet by destroying Buddhist institutions". Another campaigner on Twitter wrote, "We have seen China's attempts to dishonour holy institutions like Panchen Lama several times earlier. They will not succeed".

A Tibetan native residing in US wrote, "Today China is trying to discredit the spiritual institution of the Dalai Lama again. The institution of Dalai Lama is one which has guided humanity for centuries. Let us together pray for the long life for the present Dalai Lama", he urged.

Several anti-China and anti-Xi caricatures and memes are being shared as part of the campaign which showcase illegal occupation of Tibet and China's attempt to disparage the image of Dalai Lala.

President of China Xi Jinping is showcased as Xitler, acronym for Xi and Hitler. Another meme shows how Xi is trying to tarnish Panchen Lama by trying to appoint a fake Dalai Lama.

Lobsang Sangay, head of Tibetan government in Exile at Dharamshala, said that India should raise the issue of Tibet during talks with China. He said, "Tibet is very important for China but it is equally important for India too. Both China and India have held several bilateral talks. But now it its hightime that India raises the issue of Tibet with China during all such talks", he stressed.

Dharamshala in Himachal Pradesh is home to the Tibetan Spiritual and religious leader Dalai Lama. It is also home of the Central Tibetan Administration or CTA, which is also referred to as the Tibetan Government in Exile. Dalai Lama came to India in 1959 to continue the rebellion against China after the Communist Party illegally occupied Tibet using force.

=================================================================

JAI HIND

JAI BHARATHAM

VANDHE MATHARAM

BHARAT MATHA KI JAI.

===================================================================

Search This Blog

Media: Report