Best political jokes in hindi Shayari, Status, Quotes, Stories & Poem.
SARVEPALLI GOPAL (Third Impression 2008) JAWAHARLAL NEHRU – A BIOGRAPHY
Jawaharlal Nehru was one of the great political figures of the century and one of the most difficult for the biographers to portray. For modern India, only Mahatma Gandhi is more elusive to the biographer grasp. When viewing the mountain, one perspective at a time is the best one can do and so with the biography of Nehru. Sarvepalli Gopal is a historian of note and so is his biography. The first sentence of chapter 1 provides the clue: The broad details of the early life of Jawaharlal Nehru are by now well known”. In fact, they are not well known except to those who have read a great deal. Even to the specialist this presentation of Jawaharlal Nehru’s life from birth to the harrow, Cambridge and inns of court years, marriage and Indira – appears not so much like a skillfully directed movie or a master novel as like a photograph album of casual if accurate insights. The person presented by S. Gopal is a historical boy and man. We must look elsewhere for details about Jawaharlal’s troubled marriage, his sister’s opinion about him, the curious situation of his having an abundance of admirers and colleges and yet a paucity of close friends, and, of course, his special affection for Indira.
Prof. Gopal’s biography does give us a tremendous amount of new information, especially from the Nehru letters to which he had access. In many cases, Prof. Gopal now lets us in on the secrets. As a good historian with excellent access in India and Great Britain, he has tracked down the minutiae of details in the archives; he has interviewed Lord Mountbatten and other former rulers in India, and he has examined the private letters and archives of Nehru’s colleagues. It is to be regretted that the thirty-year-rule of British archives prevented the author from consulting directly the papers of 1946-47 that only now are being made available.
The first volume up to 1947 covers an important segment of the Indian nationalist movement. For me, the most impressive and informative chapters are those (Ch.: 5 to 15) that narrate in such an excellent way Nehru’s political work in Uttar Pradesh, and his ascendency with Gandhi’s support to the highest level of leadership in All India National Congress. Much of this material is fresh and adds a new dimension to an understanding of Jawaharlal’s ‘greetings’ in politics. The chapters (Ch. 16 to 22) deals with World War II as it related to India – the various political crises, up to the transfer of power and independence. Here one finds the historian turning historian, and forgetting or under stressing his biographical subject.
Several strands of analysis running through this book fail to convince. One is Nehru as Marxian socialist. There is not much a proof that Nehru read Marx or understood it. He was intellectually against the oppression of the poor but he couldn’t be called a socialist in the ‘scientific sense’.
He was convinced that science was essential to modernize India, but his grip on scientific theory and its applied use in Indian setting was based more on faith than on knowledge. Nehru was in many ways a technocrat, not a scientist, in his approach to physical and economic planning. The writer has correctly displayed minor faults of Nehru such as grand displays of temper, impossible princely behavior in political discussion and fails to nail Nehru on important errors in judgments like failing to realize the demand of Muslim league for Pakistan.
To that end, the book succeeds, and uninitiated readers are provided with a background of the Indian independence movement and post-independent India along Nehru’s political. Perhaps no other Indian leader symbolized and affirmed the pluralism of post-independent India more than Jawaharlal Nehru did. It is not surprising, then, that the book gives a fascinating account of Nehru’s commitment to secularism, to the nurturing of democracy and toward the establishment of diversity and a pluralistic setup in India’s political structure and institutions.
Many interesting incidents and anecdotes fill the book, such as that of the first national elections of 1952 when, as crowds cheered Nehru during his campaigns with “Pandit Nehru Zindabad” (Long live Nehru), he would urge them to say “Naya Hindustan Zindabad Kaye” (Long live the new India). Or of how his threats to resign both from the party and from the premiership of the country could quieten the entire opposition. Another point is drawn out by the author and unknown to most readers is the unfair criticism that Nehru has faced for having propagated dynastic rule. This was never so, and the writer goes on to tell us how Nehru never groomed his daughter Indira (later to be the Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi) and often remarked “I am not trying to start a dynasty. I am not capable of ruling from the grave.” Indeed, he was succeeded by another highly admired politician, Lal Bahadur Shastri. Indira’s advent into the echelons of power was to occur later.
“My legacy to India,” Nehru had said, “is hopefully 400 million people capable of governing themselves.” Four decades after Nehru’s death, Indians have learned the habits of democracy well. As the recent election in India where the ruling party was routed out of power has shown, the people and the politicians have learned well the lessons on the power of the vote and the mandate of the people. He has written a meticulous historical biography and is to be looked upon for any information on Nehru’s work.
What will happen if Imran Khan become the prime minister of Pakistan? Is he the best candidate for Pakistan right now? How will he be towards India?
I will write from India's point of view.
To me Imran Khan looks the best.
Now I know that he will say things that India will never agree and he knows that. I can actually see through someone like Imran Khan's psyche.
Let me explain-
He is not Javed Miandad which means idiot emotional anti Indian.
He is not Wasim Akram either who probably at one point of time spent more time in India than in Pakistan. I don't know he could be more popular in India than in Pakistan(we have more people).
Now let's talk about Imran Khan- he is not really a typical emotional Pakistani infact he is quite opposite of that. He has tremendous pride of being a Pakistani not the way probably Pakistanis like interpret :D
He is an arrogant individual and again not typical idiotic Javed Miandad way. Again very fresh unorthodox way(from the Pakistani point of view)
He has seen the world from various corner and angle.
Let's talk about his political career.
Why people like him join politics in the first place-
He was seen doing so called 'Playboying'(very exaggerated, whatever I have heard about him, he never been anything such outrageous, this myth probably created from conservative gossipy Pakistani view point) in Britain's social life. He realised quite early that he was not a typical Pakistani. He was fit good looking (let's call him sexy) educated open minded which is not very common even in most open minded Muslims so forget about in Pakistan.
He had huge ego but because of his social skills he managed to hide it as much as possible again a very good sign of non conservative mindset.
But the keyword is here that he has a huge ego.
So he thought that if tries hard he can be the solution of Pakistan.
And he doesn't quit so easily.
So when he joined politics he probably never calculated how difficult the journey will be for him.
But as with times he realised the reality.
With Pakistan's political atmosphere anybody can become prime minister so Imran Khan had more chances than most. Imran Khan always knew that.
His party was always struggling. He realised that his party has no chance against power houses of political establishment in Pakistan.
Who is more powerful than political establishment in Pakistan?
ISI, Army and terrorists.
So he took money from them, and lobby and backing.
He actually did what he had to do in order to survive.
I have respect for him for that.
Because it's not easy specially in Pakistan.
So my guess is what one will get to see from him if he becomes prime minister of Pakistan (which I believe will happen) cheerleading of Army and ISI and terrorists for the first few years of his political top power.
He obviously knows he doesn't have any magic wand to change everything for Pakistan infact nothing will change. Even if Pakistan get something out of India, it may not be valuable to Pakistan that is how reality works on the other hand they could be looser.
Imran Khan will start to change from his earlier position slowly but surely. He is strong character.
Army , ISI and terrorists won't be happy.
But he will acquire enough power to protect himself.
This will be the period when he will become best prime minister of Pakistan and he won't be India obsessed like he always has been. His original character will be infront of every body.
As usual he will make a lot of enemy.
But he will be a huge popular figure within Pakistan.
Probably the most popular in their history.
And then he will be assassinated one day.
His journey will end in tragic way.
Sharif won't be candidate as he is in corner now with corruption.
Bilawal Bhutto to me :D - whatever I have seen in Pakistani media- he is another Rahul Gandhi :D
You guess the rest.
Okay, this is a very important question
First, you need to understand what is exactly fake news?
Every journalists have their personal bias
Every historian have their personal bias
Every editorial column have their personal bias
What is fake news then compared to that?
Unless, you, yourself saw a particular event taking place in front of your eyes, you cannot trust anything blindly with your eyes
Let me give you a perfect example here-
You have heard Donald Trump was shouting fake news, fake news
You have to research on those to know what exactly the fake news. When you are doing the research you have to make sure the tools you are using, you know everything about their company sources and political affiliation
Let me tell you something that you probably won't hear from most
Most occasions those who are championing the cause of fighting against fake news, have their own political agenda, it is because their political biased news isn't getting traction as much as they previously anticipated hence panic and rush to eliminate that naming it fake news
It works in both ways those who are against Trump and for Trump
So be very careful keeping all this in mind and remember every news organisations are biased
How do one counter that then?
Use Google search - reverse search tool (Remember neither Google nor Wikipedia is without any bias, so be very careful keeping all this in mind)
The only person that you can trust is yourself and your instinct, make sure you are following your instinct, if anything you find suspicious check and double check, remember so called fake news travel faster than original news as most often it is boring
Check the particular account that is spreading such news which you are suspecting to be little dicey. Check it's past activity, what is his political affiliation. Remember politics is everywhere, specially where someone is trying to be innocent :D
Don't absolutely believe anyone you met on social media, it's true not just these circumstances but everywhere else also. Remember stalking starts from here. A little sceptical goes long way here
When you are hearing a political news, don't believe completely from either sources of opposite spectrum, truth could be somewhere in between. However this is not a gospel truth either. So be careful about that as well
Keep an open mind, don't believe any conspiracy theory or propaganda, remember most effective propaganda doesn't sound like propaganda so be very careful about that
Oh! There's several reasons for that :D
Let me explain in detail-
This is all started with Gandhi Ji and Nehru.
Nehru got the prime ministery job because of nepotism, he never was any deserving candidate, he was brother of Jinnah, so there's some family bias. And as a result he constantly screwed up with Kashmir and with Pakistan. He was one who took Kashmir issue in UN and now world is recognising it as separate land which is fought over by Pakistan and India. What a sad case!!!!!
Gandhi Ji used to live in his own world.
By the way, he wasn't the only man in India and in freedom struggle who wanted good relationship between Hindu and Muslim. But you will only hear that from history books (:D). People like Patel and Bose had the same intention with more realistic attitude towards life. British did take advantage of Gandhi Ji's myopic or fairy tale ideas about life(Even Pakistani general like Parvez Mussaruf makes fun of it today). Otherwise India wouldn't be divided and there will be no Pakistan.
India always have been a country of bakhts around the political spectrum. But there was no other party then only Congress party so one can imagine how much boot licking and ass kissing was going on (:D) and still going on (:D). So there was a political lobby created out of that. You will find them mostly from places like Lutyen's Delhi (:D). There's some exceptions to that as well- people like Sushant Shareen etc whom I have tremendous respect for but mostly that lobby.
They later scattered through different parts of India as well. They from time to time write column (:D). Congress ruled us for very long time so no wonder these lobby would be everywhere. These are actually people who called themselves Gandhian (hero worshipper, blind follower type and rich also in certain extent), these people are self proclaimed liberal but they are not, they are pesudo liberal. They play minority politics and defend Islamic stupidity and yet call themselves secularists (these people give bad name to modern concept such as liberalism, they later joined hand with Left lobby, you can also see them from places like JNU, there's some naxal connection as well and SIMI- Students Of Islamic movement of India :D). Real liberalism is followed by France which they called "Laïcité" which basically means separation of Church and State completely even when it comes to minority religion.
So these lobby people think themselves better than others and everyone else is stupid religious village idiot who can't think for themselves (:D). So you will hear arguments like if we have these ultra nationalist attitude then we will corner the people in Pakistan who are sympathetic towards India (:D).
As I said before these people live in their own world. They think other people can't think. Reality is these people always have been cornered in Pakistan, if you watch old YouTube videos of Pakistan, you will see anti establiment comments from ordinary Pakistani as they are just some civil servants, bank clerk etc basically educated people not those skull cap wearing and long beard type. They actually look like our fathers and grandfathers who work in same jobs.
But Pakistan has never been a normal country. It is a country made by the Pakistani military and they are glueing it together otherwise all the province of Pakistan would be separate independent country by now, in Kashmir's case seeing the obvious, Mr Singh joined with India which is why Pakistan is obsessed with Kashmir as it has gone through their grasp and also because of the creation of Bangladesh, they want revenge for that as well with Kashmir.
So the point is Pakistani India sympathizers will always be cornered in Pakistan as Pakistani civilian are the guest of Pakistan, they have no power, and never will be as long as Pakistani military exist, Pakistan is owned and controlled by the military and if there is no India Pakistan duel then Pakistani generals can't put money in their pockets (:D).
We still supported these Pakistani civilian for a long long time and took blow after blow, no other countries in our place would have done this, still you will hear same rubbish song from these lobby.
Do you know why?
It's because they are also payed by foreign sources to keep the Pakistani propaganda going. You will find their narrative as same as Pakistani media :D
And everyone knows international law’s loopholes which is it is hard to capture money laundering and black money :D
Hafeez Saeed's favourite journalist is Barkha Dutt :D
These are basically intellectual terrorist turned Left Congress lobby, these people's aim is to weaken India from inside. And to a certain extent they are successful at it as well.
As you will find them dominating various media outlets (you can understand about left as they will never become a central government in India so they are unemployed, hence have a lot of time to spread fake news, Pakistani propaganda, it helps them earn bread as well :D)
So when a right wing government came into picture with seemingly strong Prime minister (by the way, I am not a supporter of BJP, I am right wing liberal, I don't believe in God, eat meat, not conservative by any stretch of imagination, prefer English etc etc, only similarity I have with BJP as I am right wing liberal, BJP is right wing conservative) like Modi suddenly you will find all these hue and cry from these fake lobby (award bwapsi brigade :D), now they are shaking hands with Pakistani propaganda more directly as they feel Modi will win all the votes using these Surgical strikes as political weapons, this is why you will see them shamelessly defending Pakistan and ass kissing Imran Khan saying great statesman :D
I hope I have been able to light on this subject :D
No. But they are very visible in colleges where they exist which invariably gives the impression that all colleges are leftist.
There's other confusion as well.
For example in western countries leftist politics is equated with liberal politics but in reality right wing or left wing doesn't necessarily mean either conservative or liberal.
So when you go to Western countries - in Yale and Harvard University, you will see leftist politics prevalent which invariably makes it cool in India.
Amartya Sen is one big example of that
So you will find in Jadavpur University or in JNU in India, leftist politics are ruling it.
Mind you most of the universities are conservative but that has nothing to do with right wing politics
But since in western Universities or in colleges, Left politics are so prevalent, it naturally makes it cool in India in JNU and Jadavpur University, hence also giving a false impression of liberalism since we are conservative country and everything looks liberal when we compare ourselves with anything in western countries.
But reality is left politics has nothing to do with liberalism. It has certain types of ideology which suits with it's agenda for example multiculturalism or globalisation.
These are not an example of liberalism. Progressive mindset comes from thinking differently or changing the mainstream narrative but globalisation or multiculturalism isn't a new concept hence it's not challenging any mainstream narrative. In fact it is the mainstream narrative in western countries. So it's not liberal.
Also liberalism depends on various factors as well.
Are you socially liberal?
Are you politically liberal?
What is politically liberal?
Multiculturalism or globalisation?
Nope. This is the biggest myth propogating by Western countries where leftist politics is in mainstream media. But not in their active politics.
I don't think I can say that Democratic party is a leftist party.
Problem is when republican party is equated with conservative politics as well.
Even independents have also become part of republican party.
Independent ideology isn't exactly conservative either
Therefore the huge confusion
Even Hitler was a Left nationalist. Jews were considered conservative at that point of time. So you can see the confusion.
Now coming back to India, if one looks at world over, leftist politics is very prevalent in important mediums- NGO, Professors, teachers, human rights commission etc etc
These are very passionate leftist politicians. They genuinely believe what they think. And they are very good at manipulating their students as well
They generally believe in not having a border at all or sovereignty of any particular countries. Hence, they most likely to play minority politics or terrorist sympathiser
Non of them has anything to do with liberalism
But they are missing mostly even more important position - ACTIVE SUCCESSFUL POLITICS IN SUCCESSFUL COUNTRIES
China isn't a a lefist country.
Neither is Russia
In a couple of poor Lantin American countries, left politics is in charge and everyone can see their situation
In India, same thing is going on
Maybe leftist politics makes academic intelligence most comfortable or maybe because these passionate academics never been able to solve any problems in the world despite having plenty of interesting theories which invariably gives them false sense of higher moral ground over others specially right wing politics. They also don't win many elections because of that and as a result they are frustrated and trying to do their last bit of effort to manipulate people from their academic turf.
The point is academic intelligence has nothing to do with political intelligence or making something done in real world.
So even if someone has a great credentials in academic intelligence, it doesn't necessarily mean his politics is going to work in real life.
So most important point is when it comes to academic intelligence, one must also accept the limitations of academic intelligence in real life. Otherwise all professors of world over would have solved all the problems of today's world, isn't it? But that isn't exactly the case ;D
As an individual, you should follow a particular politics that you think is most beneficial to you not because other people are saying it
Also a very important thing to mention here- no single political ideology can solve world's problem.
Political ideology is the biggest weakness in mordern day politics