What was Rajiv Gandhi’s fatal error in politics? It does not need a seer to say that it was his claim to honesty — branding himself as ‘Mr Clean’ — that proved fatal to him. Indira Gandhi was his contrast. Asked about corruption in her government, she said nonchalantly, ‘it was a global phenomenon’. This was in 1983. An honest Delhi High Court judge even lamented how could corruption be controlled when someone holding such a high position had almost rationalised it. The result, no one could ever charge Indira Gandhi with corruption, because she never claimed to be clean. But, ambitious to look ideal, Rajiv proclaimed honesty and so provoked scrutiny; in contrast, Indira, opting to be practical, immunised herself against scrutiny. Eventually, Rajiv’s claim to honesty became the very cross on which he was crucified in the 1989 elections when the Bofors gun shot the Congress out of power. The lesson to the political class was: don’t claim to be honest, if you really are not so. The hard lesson seems forgotten now by the Gandhi family itself. Sonia Gandhi, instead of following Indira’s safe path, is wrongly caught on Rajiv’s risky steps. The consequences seem to be ominous. Will the politics of 1987 to 1989 repeat?
Following Rajiv and forgetting Indira, Sonia Gandhi proclaimed ‘zero tolerance’ to corruption at a party rally in Allahabad in November 2010. She repeated it at the Congress plenary in Delhi weeks later. Asking the cadre to take the corrupt head on, she said that her party was ‘prompt’ in acting against the corrupt; ‘never spared the corrupt’ because corruption impedes development’. This was almost how Rajiv Gandhi spoke in the Congress centenary in Mumbai 25 years ago. Two crucial differences marked Rajiv away from Sonia. First, when Rajiv claimed to be ‘Mr Clean’, he had no scams to defend against. But, Sonia claims to be honest amidst huge and continuing scams — CWG, Adarsh, 2G Spectrum allocation scam…. Next, Rajiv had a clean slate to begin with, with no known skeletons in his cupboard till the Bofors scam smashed his ‘Mr Clean’ image. In contrast, Sonia’s slate is full of credible exposures of bribes and pay-offs in billions of dollars secreted in Swiss bank accounts, not counting Quattrocchi’s millions from Bofors. To make it worse, for almost two decades now, she has not dared to deny the exposures or sue the famous Swiss magazine or the Russian investigative journalist who had put out evidence of bribe against the Sonia family. Seen against this background, Sonia’s vow to act against the corrupt seems like a suspect hooting ‘catch the thief’ and scooting away. This is the main story that unfolds here.
$2.2 billions to 11 billions!
A stunning exposure on Sonia Gandhi’s secret billions in Swiss banks came, surprisingly, from Switzerland itself, where the world’s corrupt stash away their booty. In its issue of November 19, 1991, Schweizer Illustrierte, the most popular magazine of Switzerland, did an exposé of over a dozen politicians of the third world, including Rajiv Gandhi, who had stashed away their bribe monies in Swiss banks. Schweizer Illustrierte, not a rag, sells some 2,15,000 copies and has a readership of 9,17,000 — almost a sixth of Swiss adult population. Citing the newly opened KGB records, the magazine reported ‘that Sonia Gandhi the widow of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was controlling secret account with 2.5 billion Swiss Francs (equal to $2.2 billion) in her minor son’s name’. The $2.2 billion account must have existed from before June 1988 when Rahul Gandhi attained majority. The loot in today’s rupee value equals almost Rs 10,000 crore. Swiss banks invest and multiply the clients’ monies, not keep them buried. Had it been invested in safe long-term securities, the $.2.2 billion bribe would have multiplied to $9.41 billion (Rs 42,345 crore) by 2009. If it had been put in US stocks, it would have swelled to $12.97 billion (Rs 58,365 crore). If, as most likely, it were invested in long-term bonds and stocks as 50:50, it would have grown to $11.19 billion (Rs 50,355 crore). Before the global financial meltdown in 2008, the $2.2 billion bribes in stocks would have peaked at $18.66 billion (Rs 83,900 crore). By any calculation the present size of the $2.2 billion secret funds of the family in Swiss banks seems huge — anywhere between Rs 43,000 plus to some Rs 84,000 crore!
KGB papers
The second exposé, emanating from the archives of the Russian spy outfit KGB, is far more serious. It says that the Gandhi family has accepted political pay-offs from the KGB — a clear case of treason besides bribe. In her book The State Within a State: The KGB and its Hold on Russia-Past, Present, and Future, Yevgenia Albats, an acclaimed investigative journalist, says: “A letter signed by Victor Chebrikov, who replaced Andropov as the KGB head in 1982 noted: ‘the USSR KGB maintains contact with the son of the Premier Minister Rajiv Gandhi (of India). R Gandhi expresses deep gratitude for the benefits accruing to the Prime Minister’s family from the commercial dealings of the firm he controls in co-operation with the Soviet foreign trade organisations. R Gandhi reports confidentially that a substantial portion of the funds obtained through this channel are used to support the party of R Gandhi’.” (p.223). Albats has also disclosed that, in December 2005, KGB chief Victor Chebrikov had asked for authorisation from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, “to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Ms Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi.” And even before Albats’ book came out the Russian media had leaked out the details of the pay-offs. Based on the leaks, on July 4, 1992, The Hindu had reported: “the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service admits the possibility that the KGB could have been involved in arranging profitable Soviet contract for the company controlled by Rajiv Gandhi family”.
Indian media
Rajiv Gandhi’s sad demise delayed the Swiss and Russian exposé on Sonia being picked up here. But Indian media’s interest in it actually coincided with Sonia Gandhi assuming leadership of the Congress. A G Noorani, a well-known columnist, had reported on both Schweizer Illustrierte and Albats’ exposés in Statesman (December 31, 1988). Subramanian Swamy had put out the photocopies of the pages of Schweizer Illustrierte and Albats’ book in his website along with the mail of the Swiss magazine dated February 23, 2002 confirming that in its article of November 1991 it had named Rajiv Gandhi with a total of Swiss Franc 2.5 billion ($2.2 billion) in secret account; it had also offered to supply a original copy of the magazine to Swamy. (See:
http://www.janataparty.org/annexures/ann10p43.html) These facts were again recalled in my article in The New Indian Express (April 29, 2009) written in response to Sonia Gandhi speech at Mangalore (April 27, 2009) declaring that, “the Congress was taking steps to address the issue of untaxed Indian money in Swiss banks”. The article had questioned her about her family’s corrupt wealth in Swiss banks in the context of her vow to bring back the monies stashed away abroad. Rajinder Puri, a reputed journalist, has also earlier written on the KGB disclosures in his column on August 15, 2006. Recently, in India Today (December 27, 2010) the redoubtable Ram Jethmalani has referred to the Swiss exposé, asking where is that money now? So the Indian media too has repeatedly published the details of the secret billions of the Gandhi family investigated by the Swiss and Russian journalists. Amal Datta (CPI(M)) had raised the $2.2 billion issue in Parliament on December 7, 1991, but Speaker Shivraj Patil expunged the Gandhi name from the proceedings!
Self-incriminating
But, what has been the response of Sonia or Rahul, major after June 1988, to the investigation by Schweizer Illustrierte and Albats and to the Indian media’s repeated references to their investigation? It can be summed up in one word: Silence. Thus, apart from the exposés, the deafening silence of the Gandhis itself constitutes the most damaging and self-incriminating evidence of the family’s guilt. When Schweizer Illustrierte alleged that Sonia had held Rajiv Gandhi’s bribes in Rahul’s name in Swiss banks, neither she nor the son, protested, or sued the magazine, then or later; nor did they sue A G Noorani or Statesman when they repeated it in 1998, or later; nor would they sue Subramanian Swamy when he put it on his website in 2002; neither did they sue me, or the Express when the article was carried in April 2009. When major papers, The Hindu and The Times of India included, had carried the expose on KGB payments in the year 1992 itself adding that the Russian government was embarrassed by the disclosures, neither of the Gandhis challenged or sued them; nor did they sue Yevgenia Albats when she wrote about KGB payments to Rajiv Gandhi in 1994. Neither did they act against Swamy when he put Albats’ book pages on his website or when Rajinder Puri, a well-known journalist, wrote about it in his column on August 15, 2006. However, a feeble but proxy suit was filed by Sonia loyalists to defend her reputation when Albats’ exposé was made part of the full-page advertisement in The New York Times in 2007 issued by some NRIs to ‘unmask’ Sonia to the US audience, as they claimed. The suit was promptly dismissed by a US court because Sonia herself did not dare file the suit. Shockingly even that suit did not challenge the $2.2 billion Swiss account at all!
Imagine that the report in Schweizer Illustrierte or in Albats book was false and Sonia Gandhi did not have those billions in secret accounts in Rahul Gandhi’s name or the family was not paid for its service to the KGB as alleged. How would they, as honest and outraged people, have reacted? Like how Morarji Desai, then retired and old at 87, responded in anger when, Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist, had mentioned in his book that Morarji Desai was a ‘paid’ CIA mole in the Indian Cabinet. Morarji Desai forthwith filed a libel suit. Commenting in The American Spectator, Rael Jean Isaac wrote in 2004, five years after Morarji Desai had passed away, that Hersh habitually indulged in character assassination; and in his attempt to do down Henry Kissinger, Morarji Desai became the victim. Isaac added that Desai, 87, calling it a “sheer mad story”, reacted in outrage with a libel suit seeking $50 million in damages. When the suit came up, as Desai, 93, was too ill to travel to US, Kissinger testified on Desai’s behalf, flatly contradicted Hersh’s charge and stated that Desai had no connection to the CIA. That is how even retired and old persons, honest and so offended and outraged, would act. But see the self-incriminating contrast, the complete absence of such outrage, in Sonia, who is reigning as the chairperson of the UPA now, neither retired or tired like the nonagenarian Morarji Desai, being just 41 when the story broke out in Schweizer Illustrierte. Imagine, not Sonia or Rahul, but Advani or Modi had figured in the exposés of Schweizer Illustrierte or Albats. What would the media not have done to nail them? What would the government of Sonia not have done to fix them?
Rs 20.80 lakh-crore loot
The billions of the Gandhi family being both bribes and monies stashed away in Swiss banks, they are inextricably linked to the larger issue of bringing back the huge national wealth stashed abroad. All world nations, except India, are mad after their black wealth secreted in Swiss and like banks. But India has shown little enthusiasm to track the illicit funds of Indians in Swiss and other banks. Why such reticence?
When during the run-up to the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP leader L K Advani promised to bringing back, if voted to power, Indian monies estimated between $500 billion and $1.4 trillion stashed abroad, the Congress first denied that there was such Indian money outside. But when the issue began gathering momentum, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi had to do damage control and promise that the Congress too would bring back the national wealth secreted abroad. Global Financial Integrity (GFI), a non-profit institution working against global black funds, has recently estimated that the Indian wealth secreted away is about $462 billion, approximately equal to Rs 20.80 lakh-crore. The GFI says that more than two-thirds of it was looted away under the liberalisation regime. This is what the GFI says about the character of the loot: “From 1948 through 2008, India lost a total of $213 billion in illicit financial flows (or illegal capital flight)” through “tax evasion, corruption, bribery and kickbacks, and criminal activities”. Does one need a seer to say under what head would the $2.2 billion in Sonia family’s secret account (which would have grown to $9 to $13 billion by now) fall? But accretions, if any, from the loot in 2G and CWG where the numbers are even bigger are not still accounted. Now comes the more critical, yet practical issue. When the Sonia Gandhi family is among the suspects who have secreted away monies abroad, how will it affect the efforts to bring back the wealth stashed away by others?
Looters safe
Just a couple of examples will demonstrate how the government is unwilling to go after Indian money secreted abroad. As early as February 2008 the German authorities had collected information about illegal money kept by citizens of different countries in Lichtenstein bank. The German finance minister offered to provide the names of the account holders to any government interested in the names of its citizens. There were media reports that some 250 Indian names were found in the Lichtenstein Bank list. Yet, despite the open offer from Germany to provide the details, the UPA-II government has never showed interest in the Indian accounts in Lichtenstein Bank. The Times of India reported that “the ministry of finance and PMO have, however, not shown much interest in finding out about those who have their lockers on the secret banks of Liechtenstein which prides itself in its banking system”. But under mounting pressure the Indian government asked for details not under the open offer but strategically under India’s tax treaty with Germany. What is the difference? Under the tax treaty the information received would have to be kept confidential; but, if it were received openly, it can be disclosed to the public. Is any further evidence needed to prove that the government is keen to see that the names of Indians who had secreted monies abroad are not disclosed?
The second is the sensational case of Hasan Ali, the alleged horse-breeder of Pune, who was found to have operated Swiss accounts involving over Rs 1.5 lakh-crore. The income tax department has levied a tax of Rs 71,848 crore on him for concealing Indian income secreted in Swiss accounts. This case is being buried now. The request sent to the Swiss government was deliberately made faulty to ensure that the Swiss would not provide details. Some big names in the ruling circles are reportedly linked to Hasan Ali. That explains why the government would not deepen the probe. It is Hasan Alis and the like who transport through hawala the bribes of the corrupt from India. If Hasan Ali is exposed, the corrupt will stand naked. This is how the hawala trader and the corrupt in India are mixed-up.
Is it too much to conclude that thanks to Sonia family’s suspected billions in Swiss accounts the system cannot freely probe the $462 billion looted from India at all? Tail-pieces: The total wealth of both Gandhis, as per their election returns, is just Rs 363 lakh, Sonia owning no car. Sonia lamented on November 19, 2010, that graft and greed are on the rise in India!! Rahul said on December 19, 2010, that severe punishment should be given to the corrupt!!! Amen.
Published in New York Times on, October 6, 2007
Sonia has never been in power. So if there are any money in Swiss accounts, they have to be inherited from husband, or more likely, from Mother-in-law. Indira, the shrewd person that she was could have kept money abroad in name of Sonia because she was a European and was totally a domestic person then. She could easily migrate and lay hand on money if crisis happended in India. Many accounts are there blaming Indira Gandhi of visiting the airfield where her son died, to take away his wrist watch which had details of the swiss account.
The bank and it’s officials/lawyers deliberately withheld crucial documents requested under a High Court order. The bank and it’s officials/lawyers deliberately withheld evidence from the Police, and one of it’s account managers Susan Broadhead gave a false witness statement to the Police.
Another one of it’s managers Nicholas Campiche ( Now Head of Pictet – Alternative Investments.) concocted a letter pretending to be a client and closed his account. The senior partner (Ivan Pictet.) sought to have numerous documents destroyed,along with those copies held in their London office’s of Pictet Asset Management. Initially stating that they were forgeries then their lawyers Peters & Peters – Monty Raphael –and the barrister Charles Flint.Q.C. later had to admit in Court that the documents were genuine.
British Parliament. Hansard .29th March 2007.
Barry Sheerman .M.P.—quote.
———“ Constituents of mine have lost £2 million through fraud. The fraudster used Pictet & Cie – - a French Bank – - and Pictet Asset Management to back the fraud being perpetrated.””
(1) It is a criminal offence for a bank to knowingly act for an undischarged criminal bankrupt in so far as it seeks to assist that criminal bankrupt in the fraudulent movement of monies. ( Money Laundering.)
(2) It is a criminal offence for a bank to lie to the police and the bankrupts trustee in bankruptcy in so far as any knowledge of, or dealings with the bank was refuted .
(3) A bank can be guilty of Contempt of Court if it fails to comply fully with the Courts order for discovery .
(4) The banks contempt is further compounded if it fails to address its error after it is specifically drawn to the to its solicitors attention. ( Monty Raphael).
(5) It is a criminal offence under the Financial Services Act to seek to destroy evidence that might be relevant to an investigation .
(6) It is a criminal offence not to relinquish control of funds to the Trustee immediately the fact of the bankruptcy is drawn to the banks attention.
(7) It is a criminal offence to lie or otherwise obfuscate the lawful and proper enquiries of the F.S.A.
In the F.S.A. cover up , they concluded that there had been “ Rogue” elements in Pictet & Cie’s , London operations . They had been moved from their London Office so who was there left to prosecute. “ Unbelievable.”
On Dec 9th,2008. the complaint was sent to 150 Members of the House Of Lords and 230 Members of Parliament.
*** We thank –David Cameron. M.P. ( Canary Wharf Speech.) Dec. 15th. 2008.
Now— PRIME MINISTER.
(1) Bankers who behave irresponsibly should face professional consequences.
(2) If anyone is found to have behaved criminally they must be prosecuted.
(3) The F.S.A and the Serious Fraud Office should be following up every lead,
investigating every suspect transaction .
(4) We need to make it 100% clear –those who break the law should face
prosecution.
(5) That we make sure we root out any wrongdoing that may have happened, whoever
is involved, however high or well connected they may be.
Ivan Pictet.
Member of the Law Society of England & Wales.
International Bar Association Member.
Written Parliamentary Questions received by the table office ..
(1) To ask the secretary of state what steps he is taking to ensure that Swiss Banks such as Pictet & Cie do not evade criminal prosecution under EU law even when the illegal act is committed by a London based subsidiary.
(2)To ask the secretary of state what steps he is taking to protect the rights of UK citizens who seek redress following criminal activities by Swiss banks with subsidiary offices located in London.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2010
Dark Secrets of India - Nehru Family Tree
Who was the first prime minister of India?
Who was her son to become Prime Minister of India?
Who was the Catholic Prime Minister of India?
Who was the first Muslim Prime Minister of India?
Jawahar Lal Nehru's father was Motilal Nehru. His wife Kamla Nehru died of tuberculosis. Their only daughter was Indira Nehru, whom we more appropriately know as Indira Gandhi, was married to Feroz Gandhi.
Who is this Feroz? He was the Nehru family's kirana store guy's son who used to supply them groceries in their home named Anand Bhavan (previously known as Ishrat Manzil).
In Indian context, the paternal grandfather is deemed to be more important. Then why do we only hear about Jawahar Lal Nehru who was Rajiv Gandhi's maternal grandfather, and never about his paternal grandfather? We do not even know his name! considering the history of the family and their socio-political stature in the country.
Rajiv Gandhi's paternal granfather was Nawab Khan, a muslim who married a Parsi (surname Gandhy - associated with Parsis) woman after getting her converted to Islam for marriage. This is why the myth about Rajiv being a Parsi was derived. Therefore, Rajiv's father was actually Feroz Khan before marrying Indira against her mother's wishes. His name was changed to Feroz Gandhi before his marriage with Indira using an affidavit.
Now how did Indira Nehru get married to Feroz Khan, being the daughter of the Prime Minister, especially in a conservative Indian society?
Indira Nehru used to study in Shantiniketan University started by Rabindra Nath Tagore. She was expelled for her misdemeanor. Indira went to England when her father Jawahar was too busy in politics and illicit sex. In England, where their grocer's son Feroz was present at that time, she changed her religion to Islam and got married to Feroz Khan.
Upon this, realizing that it would not be positive for the Congress party, Mahatma Gandhi ordered Jawahar Lal Nehru to get Feroz's name changed to Feroz Gandhi. Now, only the name was changed and not the religion. And for public consumption, an institutional vedic marriage was mocked. Such an inter religious and inter caste marriage was not allowed by law at that time. So in reality, Indira was never married to Feroz.
Indira had only one child with Feroz, Rajiv, thereafter they both lived separately, and Feroz died of reasons unknown.
Then where did Sanjay Gandhi come from? He was Rajiv's brother, or Indira's son. Sanjay Gandhi was actually Sanjiv, rhyming with Rajiv. He was born when Indira Gandhi had illicit sexual relationship with Mohammad Yunus. Sanjay was even circumcised according to Muslim traditions. His name was changed to Sanjay upon being charged with theft in England and being given a new passport under political influence from Jawahar Lal Nehru.
Now Sanjay made Menaka, a sikh girl who was a model, pregnant. Her father colonel Anand forced Sanjay to marry her. Indira Gandhi changed Menaka's name to Maneka. Menaka meaning dancer in Lord Indra's court did not appeal to Indira Gandhi.
Mohammad Yunus cried the most, publicly, upon Sanjay Gandhi's death in a plane crash because he was his biological father.
Both Sanjay and Rajiv Gandhi were bastards. And their mother Indira Gandhi..gave birth t two kids with different fathers, without being married.
Further Rajiv Gandhi went to Italy and fell in love with Sania Maino. To get married to her, Rajiv changed his religion and became a Catholic, changed name to Roberto. They gave birth to Bianka and Raul. Quite cleverly these names are presented to the public as Sonia, Priyanka and Rahul.
The surprise of surprises, Rajiv, even though he was a catholic, was cremated as per vedic rites in India.
Nehru family tree:
Source:
http://mithhilarora.blogspot.in/2010/02/dark-secrets-of-india.html
Book exposes late Indian Prime Minister's personal life secrets
New Delhi: Nearly 24 years after her death, the dark secrets of the late Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi have began to come to light, beginning with her alleged "love affair" with Punjab's present CM Prakash Singh Badal. Journalists who interviewed Mrs. Gandhi sometime in the beginning of 1984 also report to have heard her say that Sukhbir Singh Badal, son of the Punjab CM was like a son to the late Prime Minister. Congress President Sonia Gandhi has brushed aside any such claims and stated that her late mother-in-law was a woman of strong character and high morales.
Meanwhile wide spread protests have been raging in the Indian capital following the release of the book, entitled "When Gandhi met Badal". Rioters clashed with police who had to resort to using tear gas.
-Reuters
Sukhbir Badal Files Multi million dollar defamation case against internet poster Mehtab
Chandigarh(ANI): Sukhbir Badal, President Akali Dal (Badal) has filed a defamation case against an internet poster known by the name of Mehtab Singh on various internet forums. Initial sources revealed that Mehtab Singh has been particularly active in gossiping around various political leaders of Punjab. Brushing aside the allegations made by Mehtab Singh ,Sukhbir said that if he an ilegitmate child , then so is Rajiv Gandhi.
Insiders reveal that Mehtab Singh is now facing a multi-million dollar case which he is likely to loose. But when we spoke to some Badal Dal workers who wish to be kept anonymous , they said that the news was indeed true and what Mehtab Singh has said what they couldnt say for a long time.More than two -third of Akali Dal(badal) workers have sought resignation from Sukhbir and now want Mehtab Singh to head Akali Dal.Apparently they want the new party be named as Akali Dal( MehtabAprilSingh)
www.mehtabfirstofapril.com/news/newstoday/punjab/mehtab_million_dollar.html
New Delhi- After receiving summons from the Patiala High Court for defaming the name of the Badals, Mehtab Singh has challenged Punjab CM's son Sukhbir Singh Badal to get his DNA tested and prove that his mother is not the late Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Mehtab claims to have medical evidence that Sukhbir's mother is the slain PM who gave birth to him an year after his father, the Punjab CM Prakash Singh Badal assisted her in ousting the then PM of India, the late Shri Morarji Desai. Speculations have started arising as to what exactly the assistance was. Unclaimed reports also indicate towards suspicion of Indira having another illegitimate child from General Kuldeep Singh Brar who was the main hand behind Operation Bluestar, the assault on the holiest Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple. Brar has denied any such report and states that he was diagnosed as impotent soon after the assasination of Mrs. Gandhi.
- Reuters
DARK SECRET OF NEHRU FAMILY
JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU:—Jawahar Lal’s father was Moti Lal and Moti Lal’s father was Gangadhar Nehru. His wife was Kamala Kaul Nehru, who died in Switzerland of Tuberculosis. M. O. Mathai in his book– “Reminiscences of the Nehru Age”– which opens secret of Jahawarlal Nehru relationship with a Beneras girl. His relationship with several teens , drinking wine, smoking with Edwina Mountabattien & others secretly. (Link:–
http://www.sikhsundesh.net/nehru_dynasty.htm )
Nehru wrote letters to Edwina , after she left India, until her death. In his letters, Nehru often sought Edwina’s advice on matters of governance and strategy, according to British author Janet Morgan who was given access to the correspondence by the Mountbatten family. Morgan was given a small box weighing more than five pounds. The box contained all the letters Nehru wrote to Edwina between 1948 and 1960. A few of them even had a rose pressed between the pages.According to Morgan, in one of those letters, Pandit Nehru apparently wrote about the embarrassment VK Krishna Menon, India’s first high commissioner to the Court of St. James, had become.Pamela Mountbatten, daughter of Lord Mountbatten and Edwina, in an interview to Karan Thapar on Devil’s Advocate on CNN-IBN news channel, said that the Edwina-Nehru relationship was also of use to her father. And that Lord Mountbatten often appealed to Nehru given the influence Edwina had; this was particularly useful while handling tricky situations like Kashmir.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwina_Mountbatten,_Countess_Mountbatten_of_Burma)
In 1929 Nehru father Motilal made a report , after that Muslims in India demanded new country.Then Jinnah who was in Congress Party was forced to join Muslim League.Nehru was so eager to take position of Prime Minister,created differences with Jinnah.Nehru even didn`t thought of poor people who died in civil war between Hindus Vs Muslims.
(Link:–
http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=11931&p=3&topicID=5230238 )
Nehru is responsible for division of India. Jinnah wanted some reservations on Muslim minority but Nehru`s only vision was to be Prime Minister of India. In 1929 , that happened due to Nehru report Vs Jinnah report . Sardar patel was the prime and senior candidate for Prime Minister position but Nehru got Vote & support of Mahatma Gandhi .
In 1931 Nehru & his congress party could save to BHAGAT SINGH , but he didn`t. At that time he ignored the matter.
In 1934 when Mahatama Gandhi isolated from Indian National Congress due to bad policy , Nehru was president of congress who decided to support Britishers in 2nd World War. This took 10 years time from 1934-1944 , delayed in freedom.
Why Jinnah Joined Muslim League, because protested Congress support to join with Britain on World war 2—
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Deliverance_(India)
The truth is Gandhiji resigned from Indian National Congress in 1934 & never joined. Nehru wanted to be the Prime Minister of India. He had vote of just 2 persons out of 14, congress voted 12 votes to Sardar Patel. At that time Nehru blackmailed Gandhi that he will breakup Congress & then Britishers will divide India into 536 Princely States.Also , Gandhiji was not in Delhi at the time of Independence Day either on 14th Jan or 15th Jan. Gandhiji was in Kolkata,he said that is not a full independence. That greed brought division of India.
In 1948 he foolishly gave Kashmir matter to United Nations without caring people. He was waiting for social unrest in Kashmir in 1947 ..It was Sardar Vallavbhai patel who made India as a Republic merged Hyderabad & Junagadh.
( Link:–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_47 )
He also refused to join UN offer of India`s permanent membership & gave this to China.
(Link:–
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/09/16/stories/2009091650380800.htm )
He was scared of truth, was trying to weak Indian Army. In 1961 he went to China & gave statement that Tibet is not a part of China but part of Indian occupied Tibet(Sikkim) is part of India , without boosting Indian Army, that brought China attack on India on 1962.
(Link:–
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/339559.aspx)
CIA war Analysis on 1962 Indo-China war–
http://www.foia.cia.gov/CPE/ESAU/esau-15.pdf
******************************************************************************
INDIRA GANDHI:—Jawaharlal Nehru only daughter was Pridarshani Nehru (Lalbahadur Shastri gave her name Indira) who later married to Feroz Khan ,was from the Junagadh
