As received
Friends & patriots,

I would change the word “Blunder” in the Subject line above by “TREASON”.

Blunder is committed in innocence by one of our own, who acts with neglect or through oversight.

But here we are speaking about a shrewd & smart crook, ENEMY IN FRIEND’S GARB, barrister-at-law Jawaharlal Nehru, who did all the WRONG that he could, to Hindusthan knowingly and deliberately- be it acceptance of vast territorial surrenders, cease fire in Kashmir, downgrading, even degrading the armed forces and embracing the Chinese while exposing own troop to extreme peril due to NEGLECT of Intelligence- and a fraudulent insulting “secular” Constitution when it was mandatory to have HINDU Constitution because an ISLAMIC Constitution has descended upon Dhaka, Lahore & Multan. Dishonestly the counter balance to confront ISLAM was deliberately removed and the HINDUS were left “orphans” and exposed, resting on weak individual shoulders without (collective) State support, left vulnerable and exposed to onslaughts by Islam and Christianity.

The crook was a dictator. The crook was a TRAITOR. He gave the heart of Bharat, LAHORE, to “brother” Jinnah and let the Chinese MAUL the army when the entire 7th Infantry Brigade was routed in disgrace. In severe winter and snow many men lost their limbs to frost bite!

Under Nehru’s Watch the military officers were “reduced & degraded” several notches in protocol- and pay & allowances, the Army was INSULTED & HUMILIATED when ordered to withdraw from Peshawar to Karachi in August 1947, then ordered to CEASE FIRE (while recovering our own territory) and then insulted and humiliated again when the entire Infantry Brigade was WIPED OUT in 1962.

In any other country such an enemy of one’s own side, would have been unmasked, shot or assasinated- BUT NOT IN GANDHIAN INDIA!

The country is still paying the cost in Kashmir for having Nehru on top.

rajput
16 Nov 17
PS: Maimoona Begum (aka Indira Gandhi), true to her father’s ideology and political orientation,
let go of East Bengal after its capture,
did not recover North Kashmir in 1972,
did not “blast” the bogus cease-fire or Article 370 in Constitution,
declared Emergency to crush freedom of expression,
trained the Tamil Resistance in Chennai to fight in Sri Lanka (later killed in Sri Lanka by her son Rajiv!)
and attacked Golden Temple in Amritsar instead of raising the Sri Ram Temple in Ayodhya!
groomed her own son for the post of prime minister to perpetuate the rule of Dynasty in Bharat.
Deprived the Hindus of “gaurav” (pride) in religion by hammering bogus secularism in their brains day and night and by –
raising the profile of Muslims with Hajj subsidies while demoralising, intimidating and dividing the Hindu nation.

NB: When will a White Paper be published on the Treason & Misdeeds of Nehru and his Dynasty down to Rajiv who brought his wife from Italy and Rahul who hopes to bring one from Venezuela to show the servile slavish NATIVES their place!
—————————————-

ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS YOU HAVE COMMITED
BLUNDERS AND HAD YOU LEARN ANYTHING FROM
SUCH BLUNDERS, YOU WOULD HAVE NOT BEENM
SO HUMILIATED ASS YOU ARE.

This happens when politicians lack knowledge about the Army and depend on Bureaucrats
chosen even from “Hakeems, Vet Doctors or Astrologers etc” and start believing that
“un-trained police hired by them through faulty recruitment procedure” can save our country
from well trained and better armed enemy”.
Therefore let us pray, that God gives them sense and they discard their idea of saving the country
by using the “un-trained, danda equipped police” hereafter and avoid bringing more ‘shame” to
brave Hindus-Sikhs-Gurkhas who know better how to face the enemy as “warriors”.
I personally feel that had there been Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel, as the Prime Minister, we would
neither have had this “shame” nor the problem of “Kashmir” lingering on us till now. He would
have sorted both of them like he did with “Nizam of Hyderabad” and “Nawab of Junagarh”.
Tuli
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reminiscences of 1962 India’s China War:
Himalayan Blunder Which Left Hindus Humiliated For Ever

let none of the nationalist Hindusthani suffer from illusions over the culpability, responsibility and accountability of Nehru –
Krishna Menon duo for the political and military debacle which occurred during 1962 and shall always remain a scar as India’s
most unplanned War against “China”.

The fact that the Chinese unilaterally declared ceasefire and withdrew forces from the foothills of North East Frontier Agency
(present day Arunachal Pradesh) to Tibet – North of MacMohan line – was a direct slap on the face of Nehru’s pretensions of
“Third World” leadership. What a national shame and disgrace?

Having been commissioned in July 1961, I had the unique distinction of holding the appointment of Officiating Company/Garrison
commander of 2nd Battalion, the Madras Regiment in Mechuka, Siang Frontier Division (mentioned in the declassified Part 1 of
General Henderson Brookes Report). On commencement of withdrawal, I was the Rear Guard Company Commander that covered
the withdrawal of the “Garrison” comprising 2/8 Gurkha Rifles and B Wing of 11 Assam Rifles.

Let me place on record the tragic event at the tactical levels. “Never leave the highway for a by-way” was the sane advise given by
Major G D Pimple (survivor of a Maratha Unit in the Battle of Monte Cassino in World War II who rejoined 2 MADRAS from NCC to
go on pension) before leaving me as Rear Guard Commander responsible to withdraw my column in a safe manner, which was carried
out despite two Chinese ambush attempts, without rations, forced to abandon Radio Set 62 with expired 12 volt battery and wet blankets
during five days trek across high altitude ridge lines prior to meeting the rear party detachment from Along meeting us enroute; but with complete command intact with small arms.

It was unfortunate that Colonel Eric Taylor, his Adjutant and 2 other officers of 2/8 GR and also Major G. D Pimple died (failed to follow
his own advise) unable to negotiate snow capped mountain on getting orders to withdraw on night 18/19 November 1962 – depending
on the situation by the Brigade which flew back from Along to Jorhat a day earlier. The command structure, thus, collapsed on night of
18/19 November 1962.

Many critical lessons can be learnt even now if Modi-led government declassifies “Henderson Brookes Report of 1962 India’s China War”
even now after 55 years? After all, Neville Maxwell has placed it on website long ago. It provides a deep insight into the failures of political
and military leadership at all levels. So what if the report lays bare politico-bureaucratic strategic bankruptcy and bungling? After all, lessons
of the past must form the basis to shape current and future policies and strategies so as to not let such blunders” happen again.

Let me highlight important features of the Henderson Brooks Report. At the political level, it clearly exposes Nehru’s despotic-cum-autocratic leadership style was patently flawed and out of sync with the “hawkish” global strategic environment of Cold War era. The US and its allies got involved in the Cold War what with the US implementation of Marshall Plan. “Containment on the Door Steps” of Eastern Bloc – communism – was their avowed policy. Three Western Military alliances were formed: NATO; Middle East or CENTO; and SEATO. Pakistan joined the CENTO
and SEATO. The Chinese Civil War, the Korean War (1950–53), the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 brutally crushed by the Soviets, the Suez Crisis (1956), the Berlin Crisis of 1961, and the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 were major happenings. Nehru refused to sign SEATO even when he was
the “first” before USA offered it to Pakistan. This annoyed Americans immensely.

Oblivious to the hawkish global environment, Nehru’s strategic vision and foreign policy initiative was based on “Panchsheel – five Principles of peaceful co-existence”. Nehru was not a realist. He was infatuated with non-violence and leftist leanings. Divine instincts or intuitive capabilities shaped his strategic decisions. Nehru had progressively fallen in love with a ‘revolutionary’ China and thus had sacrificed Tibet. On 29 April, 1954, India signed the “Panchsheel” agreement with China at Peking – “Agreement (with exchange of notes) on trade and intercourse between Tibet Region of China and India” and set to last for eight years. Few days later, Nehru emphasized his commitment to Panchsheel at the Asian Prime Ministers Conference at Colombo. Perhaps, Nehru wanted to be a la modern “Buddha” – another apostle for faking peace.

Following Chou-En-Lai’s visit to India in 1959, the “Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai” policy became the touted position. Bizarre was also Nehru’s championing the cause of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Belgrade in 1961, on the basis of “Panchsheel”. When the “Panchsheel
Agreement” lapsed after 8 years, relations had soured, the provision for renewal of the agreement was not taken up.

Suffice to sum up, Nehru was clouded in foreign policy posture based on the illusion that violence and wars have no place in conflict resolution. Nehru trusted China to honour the Panchsheel and disbelieved Chinese build up of war. Ipso facto, “No loss of an inch of territory – patently flawed” was the higher strategic direction, which continued till “secularist Congress Party ruled India.

In sum, Nehru failed dismally by the criteria of seizing opportunities as the hallmark of great statesman. Nehru’s defence policy posture after gaining independence in 1947 through non-violence was most ill conceived – “Rubbish, total rubbish, we don’t need a defence plan. Our policy
is non-violence. We foresee no military threats. Scrap the Army. The police are good enough to meet our security needs”. It explains the reason for the utter under preparedness of the armed forces till 2014.

Having recognized Chinese rule over Tibet, had Nehru accepted the “quid pro quo” basis for resolving the border dispute – recognize their
claims to Akshai Chin in return of recognition of MacMohan Line in 1960, the entire scenario would have been different today. It would
have pre-empted China-Pakistan bonhomie and eliminated the ‘two-front” threat that exists today.

Nehru was ignorant of military affairs; lacked depth of military knowledge and experience to wage wars; and had no time for the Generals.
Nehru brushed aside any information that did not fit with his (often wildly inaccurate) preconceptions. No permanent consultative body of experts preparing appreciations and alternatives, no equivalent to the Chiefs of Staff Committee or the Joint Chiefs of Staff as in the Western countries. No overall national aim and end objectives of war.

Next, the Henderson Brooke’s Report clearly apportions the blame on intelligence failure. Until the induction of forces into Ladakh and NEFA
in the aftermath of Longju incident in late 1960, B. N. Mullick, Director of Intelligence Bureau, was the repository of intelligence for all others. Nehru’s view that “China will not be provoked for a show down” was reinforced by Mullick’s assessment that “China would not militarily
respond to Forward Posture Policy”, which was accepted as ‘Gospel’ truth by the Pundit.

Even the military intelligence assessment during 1959-60 gave the Chinese capability of one Regiment (Brigade) plus with some tanks opposite Ladakh which was later reassessed as one division plus by October 1960. Similarly, the initial intelligence assessment in late 1959 was one division against Sikkim and three regiments against NEFA. In 1960, the increased Chinese threat assessment was revised to three Chinese divisions with bulk against Tawang.

Let me reiterate that higher direction/grand strategy based on “Forward Posture and No loss of an inch of Territory” was flawed. The three tiered military strategy consisted of “deployment in piecemeal in isolated platoon sized border posts on the watershed to control entry into NEFA” across McMahon line backed up strongly by bases in depth on the second ‘Tier” followed by the “Defence Line: Towing–Bomdila-Ziro-Daporizo-Along-Roing-Tezu-Lohitpur-Hayulang. Due to woeful paucity of troops and grossly inadequate logistics infrastructure, the plan was doomed for disaster by original conception.

Let me trace some data of deployment. Before the issue of “Forward Policy”, 50 Assam Rifles platoons were deployed on 36 outposts to demonstrate “flag bearing” role.

In June/July 1962, “Operation Leghorn” was launched and 42 platoon sized posts were deployed of Macmohan Line. In Tuting Sector, I gave logistic support for Kepang La platoon. Majority of posts were located well away from their bases (on foot or mule tracks 3-10 day march). And, they were tasked to defend the shoulders of passes until the “last man last round”. No artillery or air support. Logistical sustenance was a nightmare. No troops were available to occupy defensive positions around bases; and no positions were prepared on the third-tier of the Defence Line to wage the battle of “Defence Boxes” based on the classical style of Battles of Imphal or Kohima. Such was the operational bankruptcy.

De facto, our troops were not adequately equipped, trained and motivated to wage wars in high terrestrial areas as against enemy forces descending from Tibet plateau. No light weight winter clothing or snow boots. Troops were armed with Boer War vintage pt 303 bolt action rifles. Weapons malfunctioned in the cold. Deep snow hampered movement.

Even the physical fitness and endurance capability of troops was suspect to sustain 20 miles (32) per day for seven days continuously totally self reliant. They moved from the plains of Punjab. Hardly had they time to acclimatize and undergo pertinent training essential for battles. Troops were unprepared to fight battles in high altitudes.

What followed after China commenced its offensive foray’s was even more bizarre. “Throw the Chinese out” was the political direction to the military leadership which was mutely accepted.

The Henderson Brookes Report also clearly highlights the diminution of authority of Army Command structure. The quality of Generalship that emerged was poor lacking in moral courage. The COAS and the Eastern Army Commander were mere figure heads and the most spineless. Internal personal rivalry among Generals to gain Nehru’s favour and lack of moral fibre, confused loyalties; self interest; escapism; and disillusion came to fore. Generals from Delhi were commanding platoon sized posts and issuing orders countermanding intervening headquarters. Command failures led to phenomenal battlefield confusion with issue of orders to withdraw to be retracted later.

The Henderson Brookes Report provides a scathing indictment on General B M Kaul, an Army Supply Corps Officer, woefully ill equipped either tactically or strategically to wage wars first as Chief of General Staff at Army HQs and later as the ill fated IV Corps commander. General Kaul wanted to prove that he had the mettle to implement the political directive of “throw the Chinese Out”. So, he moved with skeletal staff and raised the Corps HQs overnight. Then, Kaul took piggy back ride on a Khampa porter to the battle scene in Dhola pass and fled from the scene feigning sickness to Delhi and conducted battle from sick bed. Never ever such rank cowardice that got condoned.

In retrospect, let me highlight lessons of 1962 India’s China War. Lack of understanding of background realities prevents political breakthroughs by both sides – China and India.

Eight historical defining events or landmarks are recounted to provide a historical perspective of the border dispute. One, throughout 19th century, China exercised sovereignty over Tibet through a local governor. Two, the British invaded Tibet in 1903 and the Dalai Lama fled to Mongolia and then to China. In 1904, an unequal treaty signed converted Tibet into a British protectorate. After the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, the regions comprising the present-day Tibet became de facto independent under the control of the Government of Tibet, supervised by the British under a British protectorate.

Three, in March 1914, a tripartite conference was convened in Shimla to settle the border issue. The British and Tibetans agreed on a common border demarcated on a quarter inch map sans surveyed relief features on top half portion: the famous McMahon Line was born. However, the Chinese only initialed the main document and did not ratify it.

Four, the PRC and their predecessors the Kuomintang had always maintained that Tibet was a part of China. The idea of a Greater China was to unite Mongoloid race under one nation. China remained emphatic to redraw the borders calling them “accidents of history” imposed by external powers. The PRC also proclaimed to “liberate” the Tibetans from a theocratic feudal system and made it a top priority to incorporate Tibet, peacefully or by force. Mao in December 1949 ordered that preparations be made to march into Tibet at Chamdo to induce the Tibetan Government to negotiate.

Five, On 16 September 1950, the Tibetan delegation met with the PRC’s ambassador General Yuan Zhongxian in Delhi. Yuan communicated a 3 point proposal that Tibet be regarded as part of China, that China be responsible for Tibet’s defense, trade and foreign relations.

Six, in October 1950, Mao’s troops marched into Tibet. Lhasa appealed to the United Nations. India, though recognizing Tibet’s autonomy (‘verging on independence’ as per Nehru’s words), began to vacillate and was unable to stand up in favor of their peaceful neighbor against Red China. Tibetan delegation signed the 17- Point Agreement “under duress” on 23 May 1951 in Peking authorizing the PLA presence and Central People’s Government rule in Political Tibet. The Dalai Lama formally accepted the 17 Point Agreement in October 1951. Seven, El Salvador sponsored a complaint by the Tibetan government at the UN, but India and the United Kingdom prevented it from being debated.

Finally in 1956, Tibetan militias in the ethnically Tibetan region of eastern Kham started fighting against the government. When the fighting spread to Lhasa in 1959, the Dalai Lama fled Tibet. Both he and the PRC government in Tibet subsequently repudiated the 17 Point Agreement and the PRC government in Tibet dissolved the Tibetan Local Government.

In retrospect, expressed in Nehru’s language, his foreign and defence policies were “Rubbish, Rubbish”. No place in history for his legacy. Now, there appears to be a refreshing change in foreign policy – at least no more NAM. However, “Not to lose an inch of Territory” remains India’s higher direction/grand strategy. It reflects rank politico-strategic bankruptcy. How can army hierarchy evolve any worthwhile military strategy based on “No loss of an inch of Territory”? And, military strategy continues to be “watershed deployment”. Is the current hierarchy also indulging in “jingoistic rhetoric”?

And, the lessons are explicit for those who appreciate realities. Pending border dispute resolution, political decision-makers need to review the direction of “No loss of inch Territory” to allow operational flexibility and freedom; and specify a clear “Grand Strategy with end objectives defined”.

Next, military strategy needs review to exploit the terrain features. Finally, training for fighting in high altitudes and logistic support must be maintained at efficient levels. Armed Forces must be prepared to wage high intensity war based on enhanced threat scenarios on various well defined ingress avenues.

Gb Reddy

Based on True Story

Once had a very close friend who grew to be very close to me. I was very possessive and never wanted to miss her company. She didn’t like my possessive nature.

Once when we were sitting at the edge of a swimming pool at Pune, she filled the palm of her hand with some water and held it before me, and said this:

1. You see this water carefully contained on my hand? It symbolizes Love. This is how I see it As long as you keep your hand caringly open and allow it to remain there, it will always be there. However, if you attempt to close your fingers round it and try to posses it, it will spill through the first cracks it finds.
2. To truly practice it, you must sincerely feel no expectations from those whom you love, and yet an unconditional caring.
3. Love is an emotion ie an intense feeling of deep affection or fondness for a person that comes from the heart and soul
4. That was the greatest mistake that i did.
   I closed my fingures.
   I tried to hold her very tightly. I tried to possess her I demanded I expected her to be with me always——
5. And just like the water spilling out of our hands She slipped out from my life
6. Moral of the Story
7. We can not change the nature of love.
   as love is meant to be free,
   If there are people you love, allow them to be free beings. Give and don’t expect.
   Advise, but don’t order. Ask, but never demand.
   It might sound simple, but it is a lesson that may take a lifetime to truly practice.
   This is the secret to true love.

To day i visited Schliersee hill station. It is located on the Mangfall Mountains or sometimes called Mangfall Alps mountain range at eastern most part of the Bavarian of Germany.
Though i thought i must stop sharing the moments of life but today’s incident had shaked my mind While i was relaxing on my chair an old man came & sat on another chair next to me
This old german gentleman knew english and therefore i could communicate with him.

During the short chat we discussed about the local german the culture & inheritance the beautiful places in Germany.
I asked him about the second world war. When i asked him about Second world war & hitler I could see anger & grief in his eyes.
He requested me to not to take hitlers name before any local german as people hate hitler.
I was surprised with his answer as i thought hitler must be the role model of local population.
As this gentleman was a christian I wanted to know the reason of his extreme hate as i believe hitler was also a christian.
He told me that hitler had burnt alive many thousands if jews and their families alive and almost every christian hates this leader.
I could see the tears in the eyes for those people who did not belong to his community. I wished if similar feelings had existed in the minds of people of rest of india India would have become heaven for many.
Exactly the same time i read a message
That whatever happened to me & my previous generations during & since 1947 was what they had deserved.
I never ever expected such insensitive answer from a citizen of India.
Eslecially the one, who had been sitting on his ass at Junter manter for OROP movement for hours & hours that also for a very minor injustice The worst part is this individual considered himself as an officer and people like me “unofficer like”
May i revisit the memories of my families past in short
During 1947 my grand parents and close to 60 relatives were murdered by muslim mob and their only fault was that they were so callex kafirs ( hindus) We lost our nears & dears our houses & our lands during the partition master minded by nehru & jinnah.
My father survived partition as he was a professor in Govt college.
During 1966 Indra Gandhi created bindrawale and hindus like us were subjected to another partition. Bhindrawale had prepared a hit list for hindus and had killed many.
My family shifted to haryana whete pinjabi hindus were not welcome. The then CM of haryana compulsorily retired every punjabi hindu as he wanted to promote people fromnhis own community. As my father had refused to select an individual for peon job as he was falling short of merit the CM terminated my fathers services in voilation of the provisions of the constitition of India. My father fouhhthis case reinstated but was again retired compulsorily in violation of the provisions constitution of india once again.
During this short period our family was subjected to a financial burden as there was no income. I was engg college student. Some how i spent several.months without money. I used to have having meals a kali kamli temple in kurushetra while i was a student of RECK now NITK

The difficult period was over and i got graduated.
But coming back to this insensitive message.
The discussions had started when one individual started praising the casty CM
I could not tolerate this as this individual had caused a big harm to my family. Rather his government and all succesive govts of haryana had cheated my parents since 1972. Obviously i replied saying that the then CM was a useless person and subjected my family to financial burden for a long period. I conveyed that this was duty of govt to be polite with 1947 victims.
The group people didnot show any empathy Rather they startedcalling me communal.
The message that my family deserved the lossesfrom a citizen of India had surprised me And once again
A question has started troubling my mind
Are we the Punjabi hindus ethnically different people ?
Background of this question is
Because muslim majority pakistan threw us out from partitioned India
Sikh majority punjab threw us out in 1966
Jat majority harya govts denied our previous generation Right of employmeny and subjected us to a big financial burden
Recently i got a call from a british lady that i must continue wrting story of my life. I think i should start sharing my experiences of my post retirement with people.
So my answer is
Yesi shall write now on wards I know my command over english language is not good but still I shall not feel shy in sharing my experiences

Sudden Sad & untimely demise of Amit on 03 Aug 2017 is a big loss to our family.

I am standing at your funeral to say goodbye,

I am here at your funeral ready to mourn and cry.

I remember all those moments we spent together.

I remember all the jokes we shared.

I wonder why this relationship could have lost.

It is a chance to say goodbye now.

I am trying not to shed tears.

I hope i am able to write this tribute to my nephew (My real sister’s son) without breaking up too much.

Amit was a talented child. He did his schooling from RIMC Dehradoon a highly prestigious Institution. After his schooling he qualified UPSC exam and there after he was selected as a commissioned officer by SSB for Indian Armed forces He joined NDA and qualified NDA with flying colors.
He joined first batch of MARCOS marine commandoes of Indian Navy in the Year 1988 As a commando he participated in several anti terror operations and exhibited high standard of professionalism. Amitabh held three black belts, karate, taekwondo and unarmed combat.
Amitabh joined several operations against Tamil tigers (LTTE) as a Navy seal
I Wish to add that Amits first cousin was awarded Gallantry award PVC during IPKF operations at Sri Lanka. His first cousin’s name was Major Shah Maluk Bahadur Dutt who was martyred during IPKF operations at Sri Lanka. And his dad ‘s Elder brother Shamsher Jung Bahadur Dutt was matyred near Rome in the second world War He was also honored for the act of bravery.
Amit had also participated Kargil operations to drag out pakistani intruders.The war began in May 1999. On July 26, 18 years ago that the Indian Armed forces recaptured all the Indian posts in Kargil that had been illegally occupied by Pakistan’s army. (He was once deputed in Kashmir for anti terror operations also)

I take pride in stating that Amit had led a team of 17 commandoes during 26/11 attack on Mumbai by Pakistan terrorists and freed several hostages in Hotel Trident.
During rough seas we find several small boats get into distress. Being a deep diver, Amit was deployed in Search & Rescue operations several times during his service career which spanned close to two & half decades.

Amit was a calm person who believed in Action more then speech. He was blessed with a rough & tough body but soft heart and a noble soul.
We all love our life We all love to develop our own life but a commando lives to save other’s life. Amit lived his life as a commando.
I remember one incident while he was deputed for security of a VVIP. He participated in a function where a big python had created confusion among the gathering. People started running in panic in all directions.
He chopped the python into several pieces within no time and humorously told his friends that we shall get delicious dinner for tonight meals.
On hearing this sad news one of his batch mates has expressed following sentiments:-

“I haven’t met a person with stronger will and endurance than him…his appetite for life was insatiable…and despite being incredibly strong, he was never a bully…he was always going out of the way to help people..he was a kind person”

We all family members are proud to have this courageous child who spent his entire life for national cause.
Our family has a tradition to join military service. Our family members participated in various freedom movements of India before 1947 partition. Since 1947 partition our close family members participated in each war India fought at her borders as infantry officers & soldiers ie 1948, 1962, 1965,1971 And we are proud Amit kept the family tradition alive. We are proud of you Amit. Amit had lost his both parents recently ( My sister & her husband Wg Cdr M B Dutt ) May be he left heavenly abode because his parents needed him there in heaven.
Commander Amitabh Dutt is survived by his wife Sangeeta Dutt one daughter and one son.
May God give the family strength to bear a very big loss.

Rājā Dāhir (661 – 712 AD) was the last Hindu ruler of Sindh. He presided over the Brahmin Dynasty of Sindh, which included territories that now constitute parts of the modern-day states of Afghanistan, the Balochistan region of Iran and Pakistan, and parts of Punjab. At the beginning of the Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, his kingdom was conquered by Muhammad bin Qasim, an Arab general, for the Umayyad Caliphate. He was killed in battle by bin Qasim at the banks of the Indus River in Raor, near modern-day Nawabshah, while trying to resist the Umayyad invasion of his kingdom. The Raja was decapitated by bin Qasim,and his severed head was sent to Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, an Umayyad governor. Following the collapse of the kingdom, most Hindu women committed Jauhar to prevent themselves from being raped by the invading Muslim forces, and the remaining survivors were enslaved by the Umayyad forces and sold into slaverySindh in 700 AD, under the Raja’s Brahmin Dynasty. The Umayyad Caliphate can be seen advancing upon the Western frontier of India.

The Chach Nama is the oldest chronicles of the Arab conquest of Sindh. It was translated in Persian by Muhammad Ali bin Hamid bin Abu Bakr Kufi in 1216 CE from an earlier Arabic text believed to have been written by the Thaqafi family (relatives of Muhammad bin Qasim).

Dahir’s kingdom was invaded by Ramal at Kannauj. After initial loss, the enemy advanced on Aror and he allied himself with Alafi, an Arab. Alafi and his warriors (who were exiled from the Umayyad caliph) were recruited; they led Dahir’s armies in repelling the invading forces, remaining as valued members of Dahir’s court. In are later war with the caliphate, however, Alafi served as a military advisor but refused to take an active part in the campaign; as a result, he later obtained a pardon from the caliph.

“I am going to meet the Arabs in the open battle, and fight them as best as I can. If I crush them, my kingdom will then be put on a firm footing. But if I am killed honourably, the event will be recorded in the books of Arabia and India, and will be talked about by great men. It will be heard by other kings in the world, and it will be said that Raja Dahir of Sindh sacrificed his precious life for the sake of his country, in fighting with the enemy.”

— Raja Dahir
The primary reason cited in the Chach Nama for the expedition by the governor of Basra, Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, against Raja Dahir, was a pirate raid off the coast of Debal resulting in gifts to the caliph from the king of Serendib (modern Sri Lanka) being stolen and a number of Muslim women who were also travelling using the ship were captured. Meds (a tribe of Scythians living in Sindh) also known as Bawarij had pirated upon Sassanid shipping in the past, from the mouth of the Tigris to the Sri Lankan coast, in their bawarij and now were able to prey on Arab shipping from their bases at Kutch, Debal and Kathiawar. in Sindh to a well-known follower of Imam Hussian, Muhammad Bin Allafi–a man much sought by the Umayyad in their deadly hunt for eliminating the last of the Ahl-e-Bait (Prophet Muhammad’s immediate family). That, according to some very believable sources, Dahir had even offered asylum to Hussain ibn Ali, the grandson of Prophet Mohammed, who was being persecuted at home. That as a result of this offer, Hussain was on his way to Sindh when he was seized at Karbala in Iraq and killed most viciously. That according to G.M. Syed, the grand old man of Sindh, “the Sindhis weep for Hussain ibn Ali and they weep for Raja Dahir Sen.”

Hajaj’s next campaign was launched under the aegis of Muhammad bin Qasim. In 711 bin Qasim attacked at Debal and, on orders of Al-Hajjaj, freed the earlier captives and prisoners from the previous (failed) campaign. Other than this instance, the policy was generally one of enlisting and co-opting support from defectors and defeated lords and forces. From Debal Hajaj moved on to Nerun for supplies; the city’s Buddhist governor had acknowledged it as a tributary of the Caliphate after the first campaign, and capitulated to the second. Qasim’s armies then captured Siwistan (Sehwan) received allegiance from several tribal chiefs and secured the surrounding regions. His combined forces captured the fort at Sisam, and secured the region west of the Indus River.

The Chach Nama describes rule by successors of the Rai Dynasty as characterized by persecution of Buddhists, and Meds from the time of Chach; a prophecy of Raja Dahir’s fall encouraged defections to bin Qasim’s army. The king was a Brahmin, and the majority of his advisers were from his family. The ruler of Alor professed Buddhism. Nonetheless, there was a sense of “ideological dualism” between them.

By enlisting the support of local tribes Meds and Bhuttos) and Buddhist rulers of Nerun, Bajhra, Kaka Kolak and Siwistan as infantry to his predominantly-mounted army, Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Dahir and captured his eastern territories for the Umayyad Caliphate.

Sometime before the final battle, Dahar’s vizier approached him and suggested that Dahar should take refuge with one of the friendly kings of India. “You should say to them, ‘I am a wall between you and the Arab army. If I fall, nothing will stop your destruction at their hands.'” If that wasn’t acceptable to Dahar, said the vizier, then he should at least send away his family to some safe point in India. Dahar refused to do either. “I cannot send away my family to security while the families of my thakurs and nobles remain here.

Dahir then tried to prevent Qasim from crossing the Indus River, moving his forces to its eastern banks. Eventually, however, Qasim crossed and defeated forces at Jitor led by Jaisiah (Dahir’s son). Qasim fought Dahir at Raor (near modern Nawabshah) in 712, killing him. After Dahar was killed in the Battle of Aror on the banks of the River Indus, his head was cut off from his body and sent to Hajjaj bin Yousuf. His queens burnt themselves to death in the tradition set by the Rajput heroines. These included Bai, the unfortunate sister of Dahar. Other ladies of the royal household, who remained alive, were captured by the Arab conquerors along with other women of Sindh, and sold into slavery. Thus ended the dynasty that had sprung out of the ambitions of Queen Suhandi and Chach the Brahmin.

It seems that Dahar was nostalgically looking back towards the days of the pre-Islamic Persia when the glorious Sassanid Dynasty ruled over that vast empire with great pomp and show. It was difficult for him to accept that the ancient glory of Iran had gone forever, and he could never make up his mind to deal with the Bedouins of the Arab Deserts as successors of the great Persian Emperors.

The Arabs, at the same time, displayed no desire for establishing friendly relations with the other powers of their time. Specially in the case of Sindh, the Arabs had always been speaking in terms of whether it was difficult or easy to annex this state, and never in terms of whether or not the Sindhis have given them a cause for invasion. We must remember that “world peace” is a very modern term and has its origin in the Romantic Movement of the 18th and 19th Century. Even so it wasn’t until after the World War I in the 20th Century that the concept of world peace became a reality in the foreign policies of states. The modern Muslim historians, more than anyone else, are guilty of anachronism when they try to perceive of the early Arab colonialism in terms of the 20th Century notions of democracy and world peace.

Dahar, it seems, didn’t display any personal aversion to the Muslims or their religion. He welcomed the Arab talent at his court, and was a great admirer of the Arab military genius. Unfortunately, the Arabs who found refuge at Dahar’s court were the Allafi adversaries of the Umayyad Caliphate. It is said that one of their relatives, a dignitary of the Allafi tribe, was beheaded in Mekran by a deputy of Hajjaj bin Yousuf as he refused to pay proper honour to that deputy. His skin was taken off and his head sent to Basra. In true Arab spirit some of the tribesmen of the victim took their revenge upon the deputy, who had by that time become the governor of Mekran, and then fled to the court of Dahar.

We cannot be certain how far the famous story about the plunder of eight Arab ships at Debal is true. It has been recorded in most histories that the King of Sarandeep had sent some gifts to the Umayyad Caliph Walid bin Abdul Malik, and the caravan of eight ships also carried the orphaned daughters of deceased Arab merchants. These ships were forced by rough weather to take refuge on the coasts of Sindh, possibly Debal, and there they were looted by some outlandish tribes. The story even relates that one of the women called upon Hajjaj when she was being captured, and this message was conveyed to Hajjaj by a survivor. Hajjaj sent a letter to Dahar asking him to release the women, and we are told by historians that, “in that letter he couched many threats in very strong terms.” If that was the case then Dahar must be praised for his patience in replying only, “This is the work of a band of robbers over whom I do not have power.”

Mainly two facts make this story doubtful. Firstly, Chachnameh, the primary source of these events, narrates that when Muhammad bin Qasim later conquered Debal he found all the women in the castle prison. Why would those women be kept in the prison? Women captured in this manner were usually treated as slave girls and distributed among the captors for their pleasures, as Mohammad Bin Qasim reportedly did at the time of his capture of Sindh.

Secondly, the Chachnameh states again in the events of a year later that after the Arabs had conquered almost all of Sindh, the Hindu vizier Siyakar brought those Muslim women prisoners to Muhammad bin Qasim. How could they be freed now, if they had been already freed and sent home from Debal? Indeed, it seems that the story had become a folk tale and there were many versions of it. We can’t be sure that the version that has come down to us was closest to reality.

In the light of what we know, it is more plausible to believe that some ships were probably looted but that was an act of the robbers whom Dahar had banished from his lands with great difficulty and now didn’t want to provoke by challenging their hold over the seas. Dahar’s personal involvement in the events, as well as the captives’ release from the prisons of Debal and (or) Alore, seems to be a fabrication by the later storytellers for obvious reasons.

The events of Muhammad bin Qasim’s invasion of Sindh are well known. What isn’t so well known to most students of history is the manner in which Raja Dahar met his death. It is said that when the Arab conqueror had captured most of Sindh, and Dahar’s countrymen had changed their sides to join the Arabs, Dahar called his Arab friends, the Allafi rebels. In a way they were the cause of Dahar’s misfortune because it was by giving them refuge that Dahar had first annoyed the dreadful Hajjaj bin Yousuf. “O Allafi!” Dahar said to his Arab friend, “It was for such an emergency that we patronized you. You are best acquainted with the ways of the Arab army, and it is advisable that you should go with my forces in advance.” The Allafi replied, “O King! We are grateful to you, but we cannot draw our swords against the army of Islam. If we are killed by them we will earn a bad name, and if we kill them we will burn in hell. We agree that in return for the favours you have shown us, we must at least give you some advice on how to fight these invaders even if we do not draw our swords against them. But if we give you advice, then again, this army will never forgive us. Please be kind to us and allow us to depart quietly.” In a magnanimous gesture of royal grace, Dahar allowed these dubious characters to leave his camps in safety.

Sometime before the final battle, Dahar’s vizier approached him and suggested that Dahar should take refuge with one of the friendly kings of India. “You should say to them, ‘I am a wall between you and the Arab army. If I fall, nothing will stop your destruction at their hands.'” If that wasn’t acceptable to Dahar, said the vizier, then he should at least send away his family to some safe point in India. Dahar refused to do either. “I cannot send away my family to security while the families of my thakurs and nobles remain here. And I consider it shameful as well that I should go to the door of another prince and await his permission to see him.” Vizier Budhiman then asked Dahar what did he intend to do. To this Dahar gave a very dramatic reply, which was recorded faithfully by the early Arab historians despite their hostility to the unfortunate infidel.

“I am going to meet the Arabs in the open battle”, he said, “And fight them as best as I can. If I crush them, my kingdom will then be put on a firm footing. But if I am killed honorably, the event will be recorded in the books of Arabia and India, and will be talked about by great men. It will be heard by other kings in the world, and it will be said that Rajah Dahar of Sindh sacrificed his precious life for the sake of his country, in fighting with the enemy.”

After Dahar was killed in the Battle of Aror on the banks of the River Indus, his head was cut off from his body and sent to Hajjaj bin Yousuf. His queens burnt themselves to death in the tradition set by the Rajput heroines. These included Bai, the unfortunate sister of Dahar. Other ladies of the royal household, who remained alive, were captured by the Arab conquerors along with other women of Sindh, and sold into slavery. Thus ended the dynasty that had sprung out of the ambitions of Queen Suhandi and Chach the Brahmin.

Hindu Dharma has a glorious past of Righteous brahmin kings who personified fearlessness and valour. These kings were devoted to Righteousness and were always keen on the all round progress of their people. As per the saying ‘Raja Kalasya Karanam’ meaning the king himself is responsible for the times, the kings abided by Righteousness and hence their people were also happy, prosperous and of good moral conduct. The kings would rule under the direction of their Guru. They would patronise many artists and would wholeheartedly support the arts. They would never attack others except in self defence even though they were capable of conquering the entire planet on the basis of spiritual power. Similarly in the later part of their life they would hand over the reins of their kingdom to their heir and would perform spiritual practice further by voluntary acceptance of Vanaprasthasrhram.

The remembrance of such great kings who have created the glorious history of Hindus is an incessant source of inspiration. Every incident in the life of these great heroes is a witness to their brilliant capability. Some special events in the lives of these bright kings have been given ahead to awaken the extinct pride in the minds of Hindus about their religion, nation and culture and also to create a new urge and enthusiasm in them to defend their religion, nation and culture. It is our prayer at the feet of God that Hindus should ready themselves for any type of assault against them by taking a cue from this history.

King Vikramaditya

King Vikramaditya ruled over Ujjain. In his kingdom, all law and order arrangements were based on the Dharmashastras and were excellent. In order to ensure ideal rule, in his cabinet of ministers he had nine important ministers who were truly gems.

His kingdom extended up to Arabastan and he was a generous king who always looked after the welfare of his people. Vikramaditya’s father was Mahendradutt, mother was Soumyadarshana and brother was Barthuhari. Vikramaditya had defeated the rulers of Arabastan and had added that region into his kingdom. This victory is beautifully described in a poem by “Barham Bin Soi”. Of the sixty years that Vikramaditya ruled, he spent twenty five years in wars.  He was an ideal ruler who always ensured that everyone benefitted from his decisions. He was a generous ruler who always thought of the welfare of his people and ruled accordingly. Even though he was a follower of the Shaiva religion, he always treated all religions with equal respect. In his cabinet, his nine gems were Dhanvantri, Shapanak, Amar Singh Shanku, Vetal Bhatt, Kharpar, Kalidas, Varahmihir and Varruchi.

– Pujya Parshram Madhav Pande Maharaj, Akola

Nine Gems of his Cabinet

1. Kalidas: Author of the great epic, ‘Shakuntala’, great poet, dramatist and the most prominent scholar of Sanskrit language.
2. Amarnath:  Author of ‘Sanskrit Amarkosh’
3. Shapanak: Prominent Astrologist who had achieved mastery in Astrology.
4. Dhanvantri: A Doctor who had achieved mastery in the science of medicine; one who was an expert in diagnosis and one who could prescribe different treatments for a single disease.
5. Varruchi: Expert Linguist and an expert in Grammar
6. Varahmihir: Author of World famous epic, ‘Bruhatsahita’ and mastery in Astrology.
7. Ghatakpar: Expert in sculpture and architecture.
8. Shanku: Expert in Geography (This name is even well known today in the field of geography)
9. Vetalbhadra : Expert in black magic & tantric sciences

This is an example of how the Bharatiya rule was complete in all respects with peace and prosperity existing everywhere in the kingdom when there were no external attacks.

Muslims who were aggressive against Hindustan and Hindus fought back against this aggression.

Kings and Princess

Daughters of King Dahir: ‘For thousands of years no one even dared to look at Bharat with a view to conquer it. But in 711 AD there was an aggressive and deadly attack on Sindh province. At this time, Sindh was ruled by Dahir Raja. The king was killed. The Queen performed ‘Johar’ and ended her life. The palace was destroyed. The attackers were surely not braver than us. Maybe they had better weapons, but the terror which they created had no equal. Armed warriors entered the small towns and villages. Earlier battles were fought on the battlefield. Warriors fought against warriors. However these aggressive and cruel warriors killed innocent women, children and old people who were in their houses. They destroyed temples and the idols residing in the temples. They destroyed schools. They raped young women. The way they treated those who were their victims, was utterly cruel. That man can be so cruel was unprecedented and unknown to Bharatiya culture. This kind of demonic aggression left the entire society afraid and terrified. As a result the aggressors found literally no opposition.

In addition, since there was excessive adherence to the concept of non violence, even the army too was reluctant to fight. Sindh was defeated. Blood sucking, man-eating demons were dancing on the blood filled land and creating a ruckus.

In this way unfavourable anti-Hindu youth entered the western boundary of Bharat. In these adverse circumstances, our good qualities worked against us as they turned out to be our failings.’ – Prof. S. G. Shevde (Bharatiya Sanskruti, Page Nos. 35 & 36)

Salutation to daughters of King Dahir who avenged the insulting defeat of Sindh by killing Mohammad Bin Qasim 

‘Finally the Hindu kingdom of Dahir was destroyed. He had two daughters, Suryadevi and Parimaladevi who were sent to Baghdad as a gift for the Khalif. Our culture is one which treats a woman as a mother and here was another culture, which sent girls to their Dharma Guru for appeasement and enjoyment, which was a disgrace to mankind ! But both daughters of Dahir were very brave. They gained the confidence of the Khalif and he began to trust them. As they were given as gifts to Khalif, they were unable to prevent physical violation of their bodies but just see what they did do!  They sent a letter to Mohammad Bin Qasim’s generals bearing the stamp and signature of the Khalif. The letter contained an order – ‘Put Mohammad in a leather bag, seal the bag and send it here’. The order was from the Khalif. The generals followed the order word to word; they put Mohammad alive in a letter bag, sealed the bag and sent it to Baghdad on a ship. When the ship reached Baghdad after 10-12 days, Mohammad Bin Qasim’s corpse had decayed to such an extent that worms had begun to devour the corpse. The decaying smell was unbearable.

The Khalif investigated as to ‘Why was he sent to him like this?’ The two girls then told the Khalif, “We sent a letter bearing your signature and stamp. We have taken revenge on the demon who inflicted untold misery in our kingdom. We have done this. We feel proud of what we have done. We have fulfilled our national duty. We are ready to face any consequences for this action.”
An enraged Khalif tied the hair of the two girls to the tails of horses and made the horses run throughout Baghdad. The girls were being kicked by the horses and their bodies were being stripped of its skin in the process. Their hair was being pulled and their heads were dashing against the knees of horses. Except for the bloodied heads, both bodies were stripped and cut into pieces and were being dropped on the road.  But the two girls, who were proud of having avenged the insult to their kingdom, did not have a single tear in their eyes as they embraced martyrdom. (When Bharat gained independence, statues of these two girls should have been erected on the Sindh border.)’

The dictionary meaning of intolerance is lack of tolerance ie unwillingness or refusal to 

tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to 

one’s own or unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group.  

We have been recently reading  so many opinions, judgments, on  religious intolerance against minority communities on TV channels, news papers  internet etc consequent to one or two isolated cases ..

Yesterday I was watching a TV channel show wherein intellectuals of Pakistan were discussing on this subject and had opined that intolerance against minorities in India has increased to an alarming situation.

They are definitely right as they may have been unable to see this phenomenon in their own country or they must have deliberately closed their eyes as far as Pakistan is concerned.  It is pertinent to mention here that hindu population in Pakistan has reduced from twenty six percent to one percent  and that could be one reason of their myopic vision. They may not have been able to see intolerance against a micro community by their fellow country men.

We may congratulate them for tolerating the  rare species ie hindus in Pakistan ( just like we are tolerating tigers in any forest).

When I was a child, I did not know how grand parents looked like. I did not have a privilege to see large joint families. The so called high tolerant society of Pakistan had eliminated a large hindu population from the country during 1948 and my grand parents along with several community members were also among the victims of cold blooded massacres.

Of course prior their killings, they were all given option by highly tolerant Pakistan society to convert  their religion. This option like many other members of my marshal community, had  refused and therefore was eliminated.

Now coming back to the dictionary meaning of intolerance. The dictionary meaning of intolerance is  unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or religious beliefs contrary to one’s own and therefore most of us must agree that a large population of Pakistan is an intolerant society beyond any doubts and allowing individuals from that society to participate in such serious discussions is mockery of the subject.

Now let us come back to our indian society ie what the so called broad minded  tolerant congress leadership claims. I do not know what made congress party to make a constitution of our republic during 1950 which created a seperate dominating  governance class  through its reservation policy in government jobs.

The congress government therefore created a  community of people who hated individuals belonging to other communities ie from so called upper classes..

The discriminatory attitude of the congress government was also felt by  common Punjabi hindu in almost every walk of life.

A question always comes in the minds of average indians ,  Were we part of a  tolerant society before modi government took over ?  

Dont we think that congress leadership as well as “nation award return gangs had been making mockery of themselves when they say intolerance against minorities has increased consequent during modi regime.

The congress leadership of the state was therefore  intolerant to hindu idealogy in all spheres of life

Raising this issue of intolerance by congress and their followers, when Sun Moon and all planets are functioning in normal manner   is a mockery of the subject. Has congress forgotten large hindu exodus of Kashmir during their tenures. Have they forgotten kirana wherein it is difficult for a hindu girl to get out of her house.  Either   congress leadership had been  making fool of them selves or are not aware of the ground realities. Fact is hindus had always been a tolerant society and this is the reason of phenomenal growth of muslims in hindu india.

And the final word of truth is congress  is out of breathe and even heaven can not save her. Congress is awaiting its final funeral.