By Express News Service – CHENNAI
Published: 07th April 2009 02:55 AM
Last Updated: 03rd December 2014 05:37 PM
Here is how the kept press of India gives news without news!
NEW DELHI: Not only did the Nehru government snoop on Netaji Subhas Bose but also shared confidential information with British intelligence agency MI5. Recently, declassified documents reveal India’s Intelligence Bureau shared with MI5 a letter between close Netaji aide AC Nambiar and nephew Amiya Nath Bose acquired through “secret censorship” and even sought more information on the subject.
The MI5 documents have become public at a time when Indian secret documents reveal that the late PM Jawarharlal Nehru had authorized surveillance on freedom fighter Netaji Bose’s family including nephews Amiya Bose and Sisir Kumar Bose.
There was a time when strong doubts persisted if Netaji was still alive or indeed dead in that airplane accident. The British Intelligence must have had pursued the matter further at Kabul and at Tehran for ascertaining the truth about the report of Netaji’s arrival at Moscow and submitted their findings to the GoI. But no report of such follow-up action was placed either before the Shah Nawaz Committee or the Khosla Commission. The Government under Mrs. Gandhi told Khosla Commission that many confidential files of Nehru connected with the reports about Netaji were either missing or destroyed. These files were dealt with by the personal secretary of Pandit Nehru – Mohammad Yunus . These files are still with this man and NOT in the public archives of the GoI. Can anyone believe it?
The British intelligence team informed their Government that Pandit Nehru “received a secret communication from Bose”. This report was confirmed by a witness, Shri Shyamlal Jain of Meerut, while he deposed before Khosla Commission. In 1945-46, Shri Jain was working as a confidential steno of Asaf Ali (remember him? The traitor who handed over a ship-load of weapons to Pakistan, purchased by the GoI!) who was Secretary to the INA Defense Committee with Bhulabhai Desai as its Chairman and Pandit Nehru as one of its prominent members. This confidential steno of the INA Defense Committee, in the course of his deposition, made a shocking revelation about Nehru’s attitude toward Netaji.
Shri Jain told Khosla Commission:
“I solemnly affirm and state on oath that one evening (the date may be Dec. 26 or 27, 1945) I was called by Shri Jawaharlal Nehru on telephone to come to the residence of Shri Asaf Ali with a typewriter as he had a lot of work to be typed by me, which I complied. After getting some papers typed by me, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru drew out a paper from the pocket of his achkan and asked me to make four copies of it for him. The said paper was a hand-written matter and was somewhat difficult to read. Now, what was written on that paper, I am trying to reproduce from my memory:”
“Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose proceeding by aeroplane from Saigon arrived today, August 23, 1945 at Dairen (Manchuria) at 1:30 afternoon. The said plane was a Japanese bomber plane. It was full of gold in the shape of bars, ornaments and jewelry. Netaji carried two attache cases, one in each hand. On alighting from the plane, Netaji took tea with bananas. When Netaji finished tea, he along with four others, out of which one was a Japanese named General Shidei (and others have lapsed from memory), took their seats in a jeep standing nearby. The said jeep proceeded toward Russian territory. After about 3 hours the said jeep returned and informed the pilot of the plane who flew back to Tokyo.”
“After handing over the said paper to me for typing, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru went to Mr. Asaf Ali and remained busy in conversation with him for 10 or 15 minutes…I could not complete the work, because the name of the writer on that letter was not readable, and I kept waiting for Shri Jawaharlal to come and tell me the name. In the meantime, I went through the letter several times and that is all that I could remember to the present day. Shri Jawaharlal could not discern the name of the writer and asked me to pull out the papers and hand them over as they were.
“I solemnly affirm and state on oath that thereafter Shri Jawaharlal Nehru gave me four papers from his writing pad to make four copies of a letter, which he would dictate to me on typewriter, which I also complied. The contents of the letter, as far as I could remember, were as follows:
“To Mr.Clement Attlee,
Prime Minister of Britain,
10 Downing Street, London.
Dear Mr. Attlee:
I understand from a reliable source that Subhas Chandra Bose, your war criminal, has been allowed to enter Russian territory by Stalin. This is a clear treachery ad betrayal of faith by the Russians. As Russia has been an ally of the British-Americans, it should not have been done. Please take note of it and do what you consider proper and fit.
One has to rub one’s eyes many times to read and then to believe what Shri Jain told the Khosla Commission. Can the evidence of Shri Jain be relied upon? It appears as unthinkable that Pandit Nehru could stoop down so low to ask Mr. Attlee to see that “their war criminal Bose” was buried alive in Russia. But from the circumstantial facts the testimony of Jain cannot be discarded as a figment of any ugly imagination.
1. The British Intelligence affirmed that Pandit Nehru received a secret communication from Netaji and Jain confirmed it further without knowing anything about this secret report.
2. Col. Tada, one of the principal architects of Netaji’s escape plan confided to S.A. Iyer in 1951 that the Japanese agreed to make necessary arrangements to convey Netaji to Russian territory across the border of Manchuria.
3. Neither the Government Counsel appearing before the Inquiry Commission, nor Mr. Khosla either challenged or refuted the veracity of Jain’s testimony.
4. Most of the secret files about Netaji, that were maintained by Pandit Nehru himself as “P.M.’s special” files, one of which included all communications connected with INA Defense Committee, were reported by the Government as “either missing or destroyed”. It will not be easy to presume that Netaji’s communication to Nehru and a copy of Nehru’s letter to Attlee have also been destroyed.
5. Pandit Nehru’s attitude toward Netaji completely changed after he met Mountbatten at Singapore in 1946. Late Amritlal Seth, former editor of the Gujarati Daily Janmabhumi, who accompanied Nehru during his visit to Singapore told late Sarat Chandra Bose immediately after his return from Singapore that Panditji was warned by the British Admiral that, according to his report, ‘Bose’ did not die in the alleged air crash and if Nehru played up too high with the legends of Bose and demands for re-absorption of the INA in the Indian Army, he would be taking the risk of presenting India on a platter to Bose when he reappeared.
6. The report of Amritlal Seth is corroborated by two facts. On arrival at Singapore Pandit Nehru was given a rousing reception by the INA there, when Panditji agreed to their request to place a wreath on the INA Martyr Monument, which was demolished under orders from Mountbatten immediately after British re-occupation of Singapore…Strangely, next day, Nehru refused to attend the INA Martyr Memorial ceremony organized at Singapore. About three decades later, Mountbatten boastfully stated in the ‘Nehru Oration’ speech that Nehru acted very compliantly on his advice regarding the treatment about the INA.
7. After his return from Singapore, Nehru never uttered a word about Netaji for over a decade even after he became the Prime Minister of India. Till fifties, AIR was instructed not to cover any special talk on Netaji or broadcast any news about Netaji’s birthday, exceeding a few minutes. All army barracks were prohibited from displaying any portrait of Netaji and this ban-order continued for years even after withdrawal of the British Power.
8. After coming to power, Pandit Nehru got all the secret British reports which informed the Wavell Government that Bose reached Russia, but as Prime Minister of India he never inquired anything publicly about these reports from the Russian Government.
9. Nehru all along opposed any demand of a full-fledged judicial inquiry about the Netaji mystery and appointed Shah Nawaz Committee mainly for the purpose of scuttling the move for a non-official inquiry about Netaji under the chairmanship of Dr. Radha Benode Pal.
Thus, Nehru’s changed attitude lends credence to the testimony of Shyamlal Jain.
The contribution made by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose towards the achievement of freedom in 1947 was no less, and perhaps far more important than that of Mohandas Gandhi
by Dipin Damodharan / www.theviewspost.com
History is like that, it always shows leaning towards the ruling class. It happened in the case of India too. When the Indian National Congress (INC) came to power in 1947 after India’s independence, they had distorted Indian history in their own way.
And the true national hero, many historians call him the real father of modern India, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose moved out to trash bin. India’s first Prime Minister, also the creator of the country’s many problems including Kashmir, had tried his level best to put Netaji in the hidden shades of history.
In other words we can say Nehru’s congress and independent India had shown unpardonable ingratitude to the real man behind India’s freedom. ViewsPost tries to go back to some historical facts to expose the betrayers (including Nehru) of Netaji.
Lt. Manwati Arya, Rani Jhansi Regiment, Ex. INA (Indian National Army), candidly exposes many facts regarding the ant-Netaji policy of Congress and Nehru in her 2010 book, Judgment, No Air crash, No Death.
In this book she says that Jawaharlal Nehru had given a very cold response to initiate any action to decipher the truth about Netaji’s death.
Lt. Manwati Arya also explains that the Nehru government had adopted an anti-Netaji policy to banish steadily the contributions of Netaji and his struggle against the British rule for the independence of the country.
Nehru’s shoddy plans
Nehru’s substandard actions to insult Netaji had no boundaries. The ‘great’ prime minister of India had also tried to put a ban for hanging up Netaji’s portraits in public places including offices and army mess halls.
“I also asked Attlee about the extent to which their decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhiji’s activities. On hearing this Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered slowly, putting strong emphasis on each single letter: ‘MI-NI-MAL’.”
In a confidential memo dated February 11, 1949, under the signature of Major General P N Khandoori, the government recommended:”The photos of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose be not displayed at prominent places, Unit Lines, Canteens, Quarter Guards or Recreation rooms.”
Lt. Manwati Arya, in her book on Netaji, remembers that during her talks in All India Radio (AIR) she was always briefed by her programme producers, without fail, about the national policy to be careful and not mention any reference of the INA including the name of Netaji in her discourse on AIR.
All these actions were to be expected from Nehru, a prime minister heavily favoured by the British, at the same time, he had no legacy to project himself as a proud freedom fighter.
Nehru had succeeded in getting support for his anti-Netaji policies even from Netaji’s comrades in INA like Shah Nawaz Khan, S A Ayer etc. These people betrayed Netaji for cheap positions offered by Nehru in the then government.
Remember, Shah Nawaz Khan was the chairman of National Inquiry Committee (NIC) constituted by Nehru in 1956.
The ‘great’ prime minister of India had also tried to put a ban for hanging up Netaji’s portraits in public places including offices and army mess halls
Real man behind freedom
Who is the real father or the man behind India’s freedom? This question is always controversial.
Many eminent historians had neglected the over-exaggerated projection of Mohandas Gandhi as the father of modern India. Dr R C Majumdar in his book, History of the Freedom Movement in India (1948), put forward:
“The honour and esteem with which every Indian regarded the members of the INA, offered a striking contrast to the ill-concealed disgust and contempt for those sepoys (soldiers) who refused to join the INA and remained true to their so-called salt. The British came to realize that they were sitting on the brink of a volcano which may erupt at any moment.
It is highly probable that this consideration played an important role in their final decision to quit India in 1947. So the members of the INA did not die or suffer in vain, and their leader Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose has secured a place of honour in the history of India’s struggle for freedom.”
In the same book, Majumdar candidly states that “the contribution made by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose towards the achievement of freedom in 1947 was no less, and perhaps far more important than that of Mohandas Gandhi, and I hope true historians and all lovers of truth now accept this view.
From the horse’s mouth
Clement Attlee was the Prime Minister of Britain when India got freedom in 1947. Therefore his words on Netaji have relevant and important than any proof.
Attlee had a visit to Kolkata When P B Chakraborti was the acting governor of West Bengal. The following are the words selected from Chakraborty’s thanks note (dated March 30, 1976) for the publication of Dr R C Majumdar’s book.
“I had then a long talk with Attlee about the real grounds for the voluntary withdrawal of the British from India. I put it straight to him like this:
The Quit India movement of Gandhiji practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in Indian situation at that time which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry? Why did you then do so?
In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which are the activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which weakened the very foundations of the attachment of the Indian land and naval forces to the British Government.
I also asked Attlee about the extent to which their decision to quit India was influenced by Gandhiji’s activities.
On hearing this Attlee’s lips widened in a smile of disdain and he uttered slowly, putting strong emphasis on each single letter: ‘MI-NI-MAL’.”
But all these historical facts have been neglected by our history text books penned by pseudo-historians.
Key sources claim that Sonia Gandhi wished the amended IT Act to pass to help prevent the publication of uncomplimentary references to her and others close to her on various websites.
28th Mar 2015
ho was responsible for the abomination referred to as Section 66A of a revised Information Technology Act which itself has features which belong less to a democracy than to an authoritarian state? It took Justices Chelameshvar and Nariman of the Supreme Court of India to move the legal system in India closer to what it ought to be in a country which claims to be a democracy. A 24-year-old lawyer, Shreya Singhal was the trigger behind the challenge to the Act in the Supreme Court. For after all, it is the young who have the most to lose unless the shackles of the colonial legal and administrative system carefully preserved by Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors gets scrapped and replaced with methods and laws valid for the 21st century. The Information Technology Act 2000 was replaced by an amended version passed without discussion in both Houses of Parliament on December 23 and 24, 2008, coming into force ten months later. It is not coincidental that it is after the amended version has come into force that this country’s advantage in Information Technology has been severely challenged by other countries, including the Philippines. The amended Act made any internet-related activity operating out of India a hazardous occupation, because of the ease with which both service providers as well as users of the worldwide web can get tossed into jail, in effect at the whim of an official or the political, commercial or other individual controlling the decisions of such a functionary.
From the start, this writer has opposed the amended Information Technology (IT) Act, and in the process, sought to ascertain the inspiration behind its origins. What key political insiders claim is that the amended Act was the result of the “advice from UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi that legislation get passed which would assist in preventing the flood of less than complimentary references to her and others close to her in several websites”. Both the print as well as the broadcast media have treated Sonia Gandhi with the same elevated degree of reverence as shown by Prime Ministers Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and Modi, so it is understandable that the Congress president would have been less than happy at this section of the media being in parts considerably less solicitous of her than the “Establishment” in India and abroad has been over the decades. These insiders say that the UPA chairperson’s pressure on the government to deal with uncomplimentary posts by muzzling online freedom of speech was relentless, especially from end-2007 onwards. They claim that it was because of this informal directive from the Congress president that the amended Act was devised and passed in 2008 with the support of the BJP. Although A. Raja’s name has been tossed about — most recently by H.R. Bharadwaj — as the prime mover of the amended IT Act, insiders say that “Raja was listened-to only when it suited the Congress leadership”. Whenever the Congress leadership was lukewarm towards a Raja proposal, “Sonia Gandhi would speak to Karunanidhi, who would fall in line. Hence, to say that A. Raja was responsible (for the amended IT Act) is laughable”. When asked whether Rahul Gandhi was of the same view as Sonia Gandhi in the matter of laws to intensify online policing, the reply was that “Rahul is considerably more liberal than his mother”. They claim that “incessant oral complaints were made to the UPA ministers about uncomplimentary posts on Sonia Gandhi, sometimes in very strong language” and that it was largely because of such informal communications from the Congress president that Government of India went ahead with the infamous 2008 amendments to the IT Act of 2000.
As was pointed out by this writer multiple times in the past, the UPA has, numerous times during its decade in office, passed pieces of legislation that would appear to have come after consultations with Kim Jong Un, the boisterous boss of North Korea. In practically every sphere of significant activity and operation, already harsh laws have been tightened, often significantly, so that life has become a minefield for those citizens lacking the billions of rupees needed to afford a top lawyer or the good luck to be related to (and possess a soft corner within the heart of) a politician of influence or a senior official. In such writings, this writer placed the blame for such enactments on Kapil Sibal and Palaniappan Chidambaram, but credible individuals reiterate that the brain behind the incessant intensification of colonial-era laws and administrative practices was Sonia Gandhi, and that Chidambaram and Sibal were merely following her wishes with the fealty and dogged determination both have demonstrated in this regard over the years.
Others view such placing of the blame on Sonia Gandhi as unfair, pointing out that she has been vocal on multiple occasions in expressing her love for the common man and the underprivileged, and has shown a partiality towards known campaigners for citizens’ rights such as Aruna Roy, who mentored Arvind Kejriwal during that period when the Chief Minister of Delhi was not yet being informed by his key supporters that he was born to save India from sloth and poverty, and that the most effective way of ensuring success in such a task would be to expel or marginalise from the Aam Aadmi Party all except those holding a similar view. As for Chidambaram and Sibal, the duo have modern views and intellects considerably above the average, which indeed was why it was particularly disappointing that they ensured that Manmohan Singh would enter history as the Prime Minister who in his time created a system of laws, practices and regulations which sought to enslave the people of India as comprehensively as the British did in their time, and which marked a shameful retreat from the low levels of “reform” practised since Pamulaparthy Venkata Narasimha Rao became Prime Minister of India in 1992. Those who defend Sonia Gandhi claim that such measures were actually the result of the combined efforts of Chidambaram and Sibal, encouraged by Manmohan Singh (who seems to believe that the citizens of India need to be constrained and foreign interests liberated from the regulations imposed on locals). They say that this triumvirate was constantly looking for ways of tightening the control of state agencies over the citizen. They add that Sonia Gandhi is in fact “liberal”, as evidenced by the fact that the Congress Party (of course, in a way which had zero practical effect) endorsed the repeal of the Queen Victoria-era law on homosexuality, and asked for the waiver of the death penalty in the case of a lady who was part of the plot to murder Rajiv Gandhi.
Despite the fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has declared his intention to transform the structure of governance in India in a 21st century manner, elements in his government somehow ignored this objective and followed the standard (19th century) practice of the Delhi establishment and justified in court even Section 66A of the amended IT Act rather than get it repealed, as several BJP leaders had promised before coming to power. Now that the Supreme Court of India has reminded the government that Article 19(1)a of the Constitution of India (despite a significant watering down of the provision by Nehru in subsequent years) stands at the core of the democratic process, hopefully, the magnificent judgement of Chelameshvar and Nariman will be followed by other SC decisions which go towards ensuring that India morphs into a country where it is civil society which rules, rather than (as in North Korea), the state machinery. What the NDA needs to do is to repeal the entire amended Act and bring back with some small modifications the original Information Technology Act 2000 passed by Prime Minister Vajpayee.
Prime Minister Modi needs to continue repealing several of the odious enactments that have the simultaneous effect of slowing down progress, while increasing the quantum of bribes collected. Hopefully, sometime in the future, enough of the records hoarded in secrecy by successive governments will get released, so that it becomes known as to whether it was Sonia Gandhi who was the prime mover behind the UPA’s flurry of Pyongyang-style laws and regulations, or the triumvirate of Manmohan Singh, Kapil Sibal and Palaniappan Chidambaram who were responsible for giving the state powers over the citizen that are contrary to any definition of democracy.
Foreword:This article has a short but important history. It was written on June 23, 1977 by no less a person than M.O. Mathai. He was then Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru’s private secretary. Mathai was an intelligent and competent man from south India, a Catholic by religion like many south Indians, and quite courageous to have written the two well-known books alleged experiences of Nehru and his times, which became controversial.: (1) Reminiscences of the Nehru Age, and, (2) My Days with Nehru, where he has, for the first time, divulged many secrets of the high and the mighty of the Nehru years. He has also written the book SHE.
M.O. Mathai (1909-1981) was assistant to India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Mathai worked with the United States Army in India before becoming an assistant to Nehru in 1946. He resigned in 1959 following Communist allegations of misuse of power. One of Mathai’s letters (UO No D/S13170 of 2/12/1954) digged out by the Delhi-based non-profit trust Mission Netaji had become controversial in 2006. The letter indicated that the ashes of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose was received in India in the 1950s. This information is contradictory to the Indian government’s opinion that Bose’s ashes are kept in Renkoji temple in Japan. Mathai died in 1981 of a heart attack in Madras at the age of 72 years.
However, the article that our readers are going to read, was not an ordinary article of a descriptive nature. It has many references to Mathai’s personal interaction with Indira Gandhi (nee Nehru). The article was originally supposed to be a part of Mathai’s book, ‘Reminiscences of the Nehru Age’ but for obvious reasons, at the last moment, it was left out of the book. I received a copy of the article, (which I am sharing with our readers), soon after its appearance in the form of an article by an unknown author but it does not take too much grey matter to guess who is writing and about whom. Our readers will judge. A great deal of what Mathai is telling us in these pages, are already known to intelligent, informed readers; however, these few pages are surely quite readable although the actors and actresses of the old drama are now gone, many with their past glory tarnished! It was to hide the tarnish that so much trouble had been taken to keep these few pages hidden from the general public, at the time. In India, the general public has always been and still is the outsider, never mind what the politicos say!
She has Cleopatra’s nose, Pauline Bonaparte’s eyes and the breasts of Venus. She has hair on her limbs which have to be shaven frequently. Physically and mentally she is more of a male than a female. I would call her a manly woman.I met her first in her ancestral home in the winter of 1945. She then had a baby son of crawling age and who was a cry baby. My first reaction was that she was a conceited girl with unhappiness written all over her face. Her second son, born in December, 1946, was an unwanted child. As a baby he had to be circumcised to remove a defect. By 1947 her cup of unhappiness was full and fortune took possession of her face.In the autumn of 1946 her father gave her a small Austin car. She wanted me to teach her driving. In the initial stages I used to take her to the Viceroy’s bodyguard’s Polo Ground for lessons. She was quick in learning. Then I stopped the driving lessons because she was getting into the advanced stage of pregnancy. I told her I didn’t want her to take any risk going into the open roads learning driving. Her second son was born in the middle of December 1946. By the middle of February 1947 she was ready to resume driving lessons. We went into the roads and to Connaught Circus. Then I told her “you just imagine that you know everything, concentrate, consider the person driving a car from the opposite direction is a fool, and go along with confidence driving the car, take a round of Connaught Circus and come back”. She did that and returned in triumph. The driving lessons ended there.Before the middle of 1947 she asked me to take her out to a cinema. From then on we used to go out for pictures as often as I was free – which was not frequent.
She looked forward to taking me out driving over the Ridge with the jungle on either side. She hated small cars. So we used to go in my car which was a Plymouth. She liked to go into the wilds where there were ruins. Drives to regions beyond Qutab Minar were favored. One day, during an aimless drive, she told me complainingly “You do not love me”. I said “I do not know; I had not thought about it”. By the autumn of 1947 I knew she had fallen headlong in love with me without my taking any initiative in the matter. Her face would light up on seeing me. She started talking to me about herself. She said that some time after her marriage, she discovered that her husband was not faithful to her. This came to her as a great shock because she married him in the teeth of opposition from every member of the family. She said she began to lose her saris, coats, blouses, shoes and handbags. She suspected the servants until she discovered some of her lost things on the persons of two women at a party. These women were known to be friendly with her husband. She also found out to which women her husband had given the books stolen from her book-shelves.She made it known rather discreetly what her intentions were about me. I told her I had two inhibitions: (1) I did not like to fool around with married women; (2) my loyalty to her father prohibited anything such as she had in mind. She was immediately forthcoming about No.1. She assured me that some time ago she had stopped having anything to do with her husband. She added: “I can no longer bear the thought of his touching me”. She further confided in me “fortunately he has also gone impotent though he retained his attraction to women”. About No. 2 she was angry with me and asked “What has my father got to do with it? Am I a minor?”
Since then she spent as much time with me as possible and ridiculed me for my attitude to her father in so far as she was concerned. But I continued to resist gently. I was not mentally prepared or reconciled as yet.On the 18th November 1947 she took me to her room and kissed me full on the lips and told me “I want to sleep with you; take me to the wilds tomorrow evening”. I told her that I had very little experience with women. She said “all the better”. So on the 19th, which was her birthday, we went driving out and chose a place in the wilderness. On our way back I told her that I had some revulsion about milk in her breasts (though she had stopped breast-feeding the child a while ago). Afterward, she did something about it and soon went completely dry. She discovered that I knew little about sex, and gave me two books, one of them by Dr. Abraham Stone about sex and female anatomy. I read them with profit.She was not promiscuous; neither did she need sex too frequently. But in the sex act she had all the artfulness of French women and Kerala Nair women combined. She loved prolonged kissing and being kissed in the same fashion. She had established a reputation of being cold and forbidding. She was nothing of the kind. It was only a pose as a feminine measure of self-protection. She was a passionate woman who was exceptionally good as a wriggler in bed. During the twelve years we were lovers, I was never satisfied with her.Progressively she became hostile to the fat female family friend who used to come to stay. Ever since she saw the family friend welcoming me on arrival with a hug and an innocent kiss on my cheek, she became jealous and livid with rage against the family friend. Occasionally the family friend used to ask me to take her and my “she” to a good cinema whenever there was one in town. My “she” could cleverly see to it that I did not sit near the family friend but only next to her as third in the row.
The day before the next time the family friend was expected to arrive “she” asked me to take her out into the wilds after sundown. In the car I asked her ‘what is the big idea? I have some urgent work to do’. She replied ‘as long as the fat one is here, I will keep away from you because I do not want you to touch me after she has touched you.’ I assured her that I had absolutely no interest in the fat one. Eventually, ‘she’ got used to the fat one’s friendly welcome and departure gestures to me.She tried hard to persuade me to occasionally go up to her room while her husband was there, sit down and talk to them both. I told her that I had no intention of practicing deception. So she used to bring him to my study occasionally.She used all kinds of devices to ensure that her children spent as little time with their father as possible. She told me that she did not want any influence of their father on them because she was convinced that his influence would be bad for them. She concluded by saying: “I do not want my children to grow up as champion liars.” This was one of the reasons why her husband was shifted to a separate room.Once I mentioned to her something which her husband had told me. She said: “Don’t believe a word of what he says. I have learnt it to my bitter cost”.
She wrote to A.C.N. Nambiar, whom she had known personally for a long time and who was also a friend of her father and mother, asking for his opinion about divorcing her husband. She knew that Nambiar was a dear friend of mine. Nambiar replied to her to say that under certain circumstances it was preferable to have a clear break to living in make-believe. I did not encourage her in this matter, mostly for the sake of her father.One day, she told me that she could not bear the thought of being married to a Hindu. I told her “It is a compliment to the galaxy of great men Hinduism has produced through the ages”.I never encouraged her to come to my bedroom. On one occasion she came. It was past midnight. I was fast asleep, having worked till midnight; she lay down beside me and gently woke me up by a kiss. I asked her “What is the matter?” She said: “I had to come”. I did not know if she had been troubled in mind. I told her: “Let us lie here quietly and do nothing unless you want to”. She said: “On this occasion, I only want to be with you”. She lay there relaxed till about 4 in the morning, and gently tip-toed to her room upstairs. Before going away she told me: “I never told you that once I thought of committing suicide. Such thoughts do not come to me any more. You have given me back my happiness.”
Once, early in our life of love, she told me, “I never knew what real sex was until I had you”. At the height of her passion in bed, she would hold me tight and say “Oh, Bhupat, I love you”. She loved to give and receive nick-names. She gave me the name of Bhupat the dacoit, and I promptly gave her the name of Putli, the dacoitess. In private we used to call each other by these names. About her protestations of love in her romantic excitement, I quoted to her once two passages from Byron’s Don Juan:”Man’s love is a man’s life, a thing apart,It is a woman’s whole existence.In her first passion woman loves her lover;In all others all she loves is love”.She replied, “all right, I want you to tell me as often as possible, not in bed, that you love me”. I tried my best to oblige her. In fact, there was no difficulty, for I had fallen deeply in love with her.One evening, I found her disturbed. When she saw me, she burst into tears. I asked her what had happened. She said that when she came from her dressing room to drink her usual glass of milk, she discovered that there was finely powdered glass in it. The powder was floating on the thick cream. At the first sip she immediately sensed it in her mouth and spat it out. She said that from her dressing room she heard her husband sneaking into her bedroom and making an exit. She controlled herself, put her arms round me and holding me tight, said: “Oh, Mackie, I love you; I am so glad you came up.”
In the Constellation plans on our first visit abroad together, she was all excitement when we were in sight of Mont Blanc. She said softly to me, “I like the Queen Bee, I would like to make love high up in the air”. I asked her:”Didn’t you ever dream of soaring higher up like an eagle and surveying the world? I woke up from such a dream once and found myself on the floor, for I had fallen from the bed without breaking any bones”. She knew I was pulling her leg. On reaching London, she found out the first free meal-time for her, and arranged for me to take her to a quiet restaurant. On reaching the restaurant, I asked her to order the food; I said I would have the same as hers with the addition of six large raw oysters on ice with appropriate sauce to begin with. She said she too would have it. The main dish she ordered was veal. She said “Ever since I arrived here, I have been dying to eat veal”. I asked her if ever she had read Vatsayana’s Kama Sutra. She said, “No, why?” I told her Vatsayana had prescribed veal for young couple for six months before marriage. She had not even read the Ramayana or the Mahabaharata. Her knowledge of the Ramayana was only what her grandmother had told her. In many ways, she was a denationalized person.
She did not like artificial birth-control aids. Once in the early fifties she got pregnant by me. She decided to have an abortion done. She went to the British High Commission doctor whom she knew personally; but he refused to help. So she went to her ancestral home and got in touch with a lady doctor whom she knew personally and in whom she had perfect confidence. On this trip she took her second son with her. After a fortnight the mother and the little son returned with the good news that the boy was cured of his defect in speech in the natural process. Earlier he could not pronounce “R”, and the mother was worried about it; she was in frantic search for a speech-correction expert. On the day of her return, she told me that the whole thing came out without any medication or aid.Was the father aware of her attachment to me? The answer is in the affirmative. Every time he had to go out for dinner, he knew where to find her. Fifteen minutes before the time of departure, she would come fully decked up and sit in front of me in my study. At the stroke of the appointed time the father would pass my study and call her out.
In the winter of 1958 I happened to see something by sheer chance. Immediately after lunch, I went to convey some urgent information to her. She had already closed the door. I knocked; after about five minutes she half-opened the door and peeped out. I discovered that the curtains were drawn and a tall, youngish handsome, bearded man – a Brahmacahri – was in the room. I came away saying “I had something to tell you; but I shall say it later”. That was the end of our relationship. She tried to make me believe several times that the scene I witnessed meant nothing more than some “yoga” and “spiritual” lessons. I gave her the definite impression that I was not interested in her explanations. Gradually she grew bitter against me. In fact, ultimately she became my deadly enemy – which constantly reminded me of the famous couplet of William Congrave:”Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned; nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.”Within a fortnight of the incident I collected all her passionate letters and returned them to her. A year later I came across some more in my old papers. They were also returned to her.There is an erroneous belief among some that she and her husband came together during the last two years of the husband’s life. Enough had happened in their lives that a reunion of hearts was not humanly possible. It is true that she was kind and considerate to him during his illness. Certain things were done during this period and more specially at the cremation and collection of the ashes of the husband and well advertised to give certain desired impressions. They were all for public consumption, for, by that time, she had emerged as a full-fledged political animal.
A few clarifications, now that the readers had a look at the material presented by no less a person than M.O. Mathai himself on Indira (aka Maimuna Begum).Indira used to ‘shave her limbs’;
read that as ‘her pubic hairs’. This is an Islamic practice forced today on the Afghan population by the Talibans in Afghanistan. There is nothing extraordinary in her statement that she would not like to get married to a Hindu man, although she used to have unauthorized sex with the Hindu ‘brahmachari’ in her own bed room.That her second son (the bastard son by Mohammad Yunus) Sanjay (aka Sanjiv) had circumcision is no secret now. Why blame an unknown and imagined ‘defect’? It was done only to leave the seal of Islam, exactly as it had been done on Jawahar in the palace of the nawab of Oudh. Her inordinate love to eat veal can be tolerated but not the false explanation of circumcision. The entire Nehru family was of Islamic roots of unknown pedigree and they now plan to hand over the country today, to an ill-bred Catholic woman of unknown pedigree.That she had the abortion of her third baby, the one sired by Mathai, is not known by many. But the matter was hushed up by the excuse of ‘speech-defect’ of the baby son, Sanjiv (he was not name-changed to Sanjay as yet, after the car theft in London and to procure a separate Indian passport to evade the London police). Now we know that it is hard to pronounce the letter ‘R’!That Firoz was a liar does not come to us a surprise! Didn’t the school boys use to chant:”Gali gali men shor hai,Rajiv Gandhi chor hai?”And to think that no one had told them that the bastard son of Indira was the Bofors thief, which fact even any of the Indian leaders have not yet been able to decipher! And how could a fornication-prone thief like Firoz, hide the fact from a smart broad like Indira (aka Maimuna Begum), his own wife, for, it is widely accepted that Indira was indeed much smarter than Firoz.
That Indira had no or little knowledge of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, was suspected by many. Did she know anything at all of the Koran? She was after all invited by the Saudi king to attend the Hajj ceremony at Mecca which information was also suppressed by our foolish media persons. If Indira learnt the rudiments of the Ramayana from her grandmother, the question still remains, which one? Jawahar’s mother or Kamla Nehru’s (nee Kaul) mother! We happen to know the name of Jawahar’s mother; it was Thussu which was changed later to Swarup Rani. None of us seem to know the name of Kamla Kaul’s mother.The fact of Firoz’s cremation is very interesting. It was done only to fool the Hindus of India. This Sunni musalman son of Nawab Khan, the liquor vendor of Allahabad, converted to Catholicism by Sonia’s petulance at Orbassano, Italy, had died and been cremated like the kafir Hindus but was not buried in accordance with the tenets of Islam. Then what happened to him? Did he go to the Jannat at all? Did he have the 72 houries and the 28 gilmans (pearl-like boys)? No one tells us that! It is amazing that the Indian media is headed by a bunch of idiots and that situation needs to be corrected as early as possible.
I am sure that the short write up by Mathai has done a world of good for our readers and eventually the larger public in India. Rest assured, all India is now reading our web-site and discovering the truth for the first time. The truth will surely eventually come out in full, for all to know and eventually they will all act as true sons of the soil. At the moment, our India is chock a block with traitors, starting from the President, Michael Kocheril Raman Narayanan to Gujral, Kuldip Nayyar, Shabana Azmi, Javed Akhtar, Dilip Kumar, Mani Shankar Aiyar, K. Natwar Singh, retired ambassador Abid Husain, Mukarram Husain et al and a host of others!And a thought about Firoz’s attempt to poison his own wife! Was it the same incident that had prompted Indira to poison Lal Bahadur Shastri at Tashkent? Who knows?