Nehrus Tryst with destiny

Tryst with destiny “ Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time
comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very
substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake
to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step
out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long
suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of
dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.

At the dawn of history India started on her unending quest, and trackless centuries are
filled with her striving and the grandeur of her success and her failures. Through good
and ill fortune alike she has never lost sight of that quest or forgotten the ideals which
gave her strength. We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers herself again.
The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the
greater triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough
to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future?

Freedom and power bring responsibility. The responsibility rests upon this Assembly, a
sovereign body representing the sovereign people of India. Before the birth of freedom
we have endured all the pains of labour and our hearts are heavy with the memory of this
sorrow. Some of those pains continue even now. Nevertheless, the past is over and it is
the future that beckons to us now.

That future is not one of ease or resting but of incessant striving so that we may fulfil the
pledges we have so often taken and the one we shall take today. The service of India
means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and
ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of
our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us, but as
long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over.

And so we have to labour and to work, and work hard, to give reality to our dreams.
Those dreams are for India, but they are also for the world, for all the nations and peoples
are too closely knit together today for any one of them to imagine that it can live apart
Peace has been said to be indivisible; so is freedom, so is prosperity now, and so also is
disaster in this One World that can no longer be split into isolated fragments.

To the people of India, whose representatives we are, we make an appeal to join us with
faith and confidence in this great adventure. This is no time for petty and destructive
criticism, no time for ill-will or blaming others.
We have to build the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell. The
appointed day has come-the day appointed by destiny-and India stands forth again, after
long slumber and struggle, awake, vital, free and independent. The past clings on to us
still in some measure and we have to do much before we redeem the pledges we have so
often taken. Yet the turning-point is past, and history begins anew for us, the history
which we shall live and act and others will write about.
It is a fateful moment for us in India, for all Asia and for the world. A new star rises, the
star of freedom in the East, a new hope comes into being, a vision long cherished
materializes. May the star never set and that hope never be betrayed! We rejoice in that
freedom, even though clouds surround us, and many of our people are sorrowstricken and
difficult problems encompass us. But freedom brings responsibilities and burdens and we
have to face them in the spirit of a free and disciplined people.

On this day our first thoughts go to the architect of this freedom, the Father of our Nation
[Gandhi], who, embodying the old spirit of India, held aloft the torch of freedom and
lighted up the darkness that surrounded us. We have often been unworthy followers of his
and have strayed from his message, but not only we but succeeding generations will
remember this message and bear the imprint in their hearts of this great son of India,
magnificent in his faith and strength and courage and humility. We shall never allow that
torch of freedom to be blown out, however high the wind or stormy the tempest. Our next
thoughts must be of the unknown volunteers

and soldiers of freedom who, without praise or reward, have served India even unto
death. We think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by political
boundaries and who unhappily cannot share at present in the freedom that has come.
They are of us and will remain of us whatever may happen, and we shall be sharers in
their good [or] ill fortune alike.

The future beckons to us. Whither do we go and what shall be our endeavour? To bring
freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to
fight and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic
and progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which
will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman.

We have hard work ahead. There is no resting for any one of us till we redeem our pledge
in full, till we make all the people of India what destiny intended them to be. We are
citizens of a great country on the verge of bold advance, and we have to live up to that
high standard. All of us, to whatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of
India with equal rights, privileges and obligations. We cannot encourage communalism or
narrow-mindedness, for no nation can be great whose people are narrow in thought or in
action.

To the nations and peoples of the world we send greetings and pledge ourselves to
cooperate with them in furthering peace, freedom and democracy. And to India, our
much-loved motherland, the ancient, the eternal and the ever-new, we pay our reverent
homage and we bind ourselves afresh to her service. Jai Hind.
15th World Vegetarian Congress 1957: Inaugural Speech by the President of
India
It was again not an accident but equally a logical process that Christianity, since its
earliest days when it had no political significance, and later on Zoroastrianism found a
hospitable atmosphere and field to flourish in this country. Islam, with all its conquering
zeal, became tamed in India, and the conquests by its saints became as significant as, if
not more than the conquests of the Muslim conquerors and rulers. And today we have got
a composite culture in which so many elements have contributed to make a mosaic of a
most beautiful and variegated pattern of society.

Vegetarianism therefore in India has always been a semi-religious social feature of our
life and not merely expressive only of dietetic theories or economic necessity, although
results in these respects have also flowed from it. It is therefore not surprising that there
are so many castes and communities which have been vegetarian for genera-tions, no
member of which has ever touched or tasted meat derived from any slaughtered animal,
big or small.

When I say this, I should not be misunderstood as claiming that India as a whole is
vegetarian or that even a majority of its population is vegetarian. It is only some Hindu
castes and communities who are vegetarian as such. The Muslims, the Christians, the
Parsis, the Sikhs, and even the Buddhists, are not vegetarians as a community: that is to
say, meat-eating is not socially prohibited amongst them, which is the case with the other
communities mentioned above. But in another sense a large majority is vegetarian, not in
the sense that it does not or cannot eat meat but because it does not get it or cannot afford
it. It is only a small proportion of our population who are regular meat-eaters. Even
among these, vegetables, cereals and fruits constitute a larger proportion of their daily
fare in this country than in other countries.

It may also be stated that we have our peculiar ideas - call them prejudices if you like -
about some of these matters. Even those who eat meat are not permitted to take all kinds
of meat, but have limitations put on their choice of meat either by restricting the animals
the flesh of which may be eaten or by restricting the time and the number of days in the
year when it may or may not be taken, and curiously enough, even by the method of
which an animal intend-ed for food is to be slaughtered. Thus there are certain animals
which differ from community to community the flesh of which may not be eaten and
must be eschewed. There are some days or some occasions on which meat may not he
eaten, and there are restrictions on the way in which, and the occasion on which the
animal may be slaughtered and its flesh eaten.
So far as the Hindus are concerned, all these restrictions and inhibitions are based more
or less on a recognition of the weakness of man's palate, on the value of absten-tion and
on the necessity of restricting the use as much and in as many ways as possible. No
wonder therefore that whether as a matter of tradition or family custom, personal belief or
communal regulation, or whether as a result of economic factors or appreciation of the
value of non-meat diet for healthy growth of body, mind and soul, we have a considerable
proportion of our population which completely abstains from meat, and a very much
larger proportion which indulges in meat diet occasionally and on particular occasions.
I may also note for the information of foreigners who may not be acquainted with our
customs, that, generally speaking, in India we do not regard milk and milk products as
non-vegetarian food. On the other hand, eggs, even non-fertile eggs, are regarded as non-
vegetarian food in orthodox circles.

All these considerations have combined to produce a society in India which in the matter
of food differs in this respect from other countries. Whether it was considered a valid
argument or not in the olden days when ahimsa and the effect of the food on human
nature were emphasized in eschewing animal food, our present-day economic situation
fits in very well with our traditional mode of living. Our population is large and is
growing tremendously at the rate of 4 to 5 millions per year.

The quantity of land is limited and can-not be increased even by an inch. The
uncultivated portion may be brought under cultivation, but there is no doubt that within
the foreseeable future, it will be impossible to increase the land under cultivation.
Increase in yield per unit of land has also conceivably a limit. We have therefore to
consider whether cereals or meat can be more economically grown on the land. In
countries where vast areas are still available and grazing grounds extend far and wide
animals may be bred for meat purposes.

"The generally accepted computation is that 2 1/2, acres of land are required to provide a
minimum adequate diet for each person, by Western standards, anyhow. On a vegetarian
diet it has been estimated that 1 1/2 acres per head may provide enough. The reason for
this difference is that animals grazed for meat-eating purposes require from 9 to 15 times
more land than is necessary to raise an equivalent amount of nutrition in the form of
grains, vegetables and fruit for human consumption." This is the conclusion arrived at by
Mr. Richard B. Gregg, an American, on a study of the literature on the subject. It is
therefore a very lucky and fortunate coincidence that our vegetarianism, limited though it
may be, reduces tremendously the pressure on land which is already being felt in many
parts of the country.

It is not for a vegetarian to claim that his food can produce better men and women than
meat food. There may be various standards for judging men and it is possible that judged
by one standard, meat-eaters are better than vegetarians: and vegetarians may be found to
be better than meat-eaters if judged by another standard, as for example in the matter of
endurance.
But apart from these, there is a fundamental point which has become relevant in the
context of modern conditions and the history of civilization as it has developed during the
past few centuries. There can be no doubt that non-violence or the policy of live and let
live, is the only policy which can solve most of our troubles and problems.

As I have indicated above, in its active form it means readiness to sacrifice one's self,
one's comfort and one's ambitions for the sake of others. The alternative is to utilise
others to fulfil one's own desires and ambitions. Somehow or other, man has for centuries
convinced himself that he is the best and the most evolved of all known creatures and it is
therefore only right and proper that all other creatures should be made to subserve man
and satisfy him. It is this policy or theory which enables us to slaughter without hesitation
other living animals either to satisfy our palate or to fill our stomach or to decorate our
body or only to give us amusement as in sports.

In times which were considered to be less civilized and when man was only a hunter, he
lived more or less like any other wild animal by hunting another animal for his food. As
his tastes and desires were limited, he did not destroy as much as the more civil-ized man
of today has to destroy to satisfy his tastes. In those days, although man lived on other
animals, he did not breed animals only to be slaughtered as is done today on a
tremendously big scale. Millions and millions of animals are bred and fattened only to be
slaughtered to supply food and other requirements of man.

Medi-cines too account for the torture and slaughter of numberless animals in various
ways, and so, as we have progressed in civilization, respect for life has become less and
less. We have now reached a stage when that lessened respect for life is not confined to
what are called lower animals, but has come to include human beings: and therefore it is
a matter of deep concern though it is more or less a logical result of lessening respect for
animal life that respect for human life also has gone down tremendously.

That is, if man being superior to another animal can exploit and even slaughter it for his
own pur-poses, the next natural step is that the stronger man or nation should consider it
nothing wrong to exploit or even destroy a weaker man or tribe or nation. This is what
has happened and what is at the root of all exploitation by the people of one country of
the people of another for no reason except that it was necessary to do so to raise the
standard of living of the former at the expense of the latter.

Not long ago there used to be restrictions on wanton destruc-tion of human life even in
war and between warriors of opposing sides. But that idea is now out of date, and today,
with the weapons of mass destruction at man's disposal, the human race itself is in
imminent danger of being destroyed.

It is a far cry from veget-arianism to atomic or hydrogen bomb, but if you look at it, there
is no escape from vegetarianism ultimately if we want to escape from the hydrogen
bomb. Any integrated view of life as a whole will reveal to us the connection between the
individual's food and his behaviour towards others, and through a process of ratiocination
which is not fantastic, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the only means of
escaping the hydrogen bomb is to escape the mentality which has produced it, and the
only way to escape that mentality is to cultivate respect for all life, life in all forms, under
all conditions. It is only another name for vegetarianism.

Let me hope that your deliberations in the environment of this country will be fruitful and
even India, which at the present moment seems to he rushing headlong on the path
followed by Western nat-ions, will stop awhile and think out afresh the implications and
ultimate consequences of her own policies."
Rajaji on n arms

The Problem is Here and Now It is clearly not the exaggerated fears of laymen that have
induced the current wave of protests against test explosions. The opinion rather of the
veterans of science is the basis of the world's opposition.

It is often alleged that laymen exaggerate the terrible consequences. On the other hand,
the truth is that the dangers are often played down by specialists engaged by the Powers.
There is no such thing as a tolerance dose so far as genetic effects are concerned. Any
radiation can lead to changes in the germ plasm. This was clearly affirmed at a high level
symposium. There is no casual therapy for acute radiation injuries. Therapeutic
management is limited to symptomatic measures. There is no prophylaxis against delayed
effects. Changes in the heredity structure are irreversible. Once affected there is no going
back. With increasing mutation consequent on radioactive damage there is an increased
tendency to spontaneous mutation.

In calculating harmful consequences or percentage of chances, there is no meaning in

assuming that the poison of fallout will be evenly spread over the whole earth. The
likelihood is that the poison may come down in denser quantities in some areas.?

There are some people who think that the real remedy lies in doing away with war
altogether. Bertrand Russell once took this view and I immediately contested the
correctness or the expediency of this attitude. The immediate duty should not be forgotten
in the hope that we may succeed on the wider issue.

There is no conceivable point of time at which our distrust will disappear of itself, if we
maintain the conditions for mutual distrust and especially this supreme cause for more
and more mutual fear.

It is truly scandalous that these tests could be going on when eminent men of science, one
after another, have pointed out the grave danger to world health and to future generations
in the clearest possible language that men of science can command. Is science only to
serve the purposes of war? When science warns against something_ as being dangerous
to the whole human race, must we not, react with greater alacrity and heed the warning?

Whatever be the motive or necessity, the coldwar Powers have no right to disregard the
rights of the world to continue in good health and in the prospect of successive,
uncontaminated generations of men and women being born; and in this matter we have to
accept the opinion of great scientists of well recognised eminence in preference to that of
State hired technologists and scientific administrators.

In April 1957 the Prime Minister of India publicly raised the question whether the nuclear
powers have the right to spread radioactive poison over other parts of the world. Five
years have passed and an immense quantity of poisonous fallout has been added during
this period instead of the rights of mankind being recognized and respected.

So far, it was poisoning of mankind and of the genetic basis for future generations. But
now the United States has planned high altitude explosions, which will corrupt the
cosmic environment in which the evolution of life has taken place on this planet, and
which is an integral part of the current life kept up on the planet. This, so to say, would be
a diabolic pincer movement against mankind. British scientist Bernard Lovell has
expressed his strong disapproval of this adventure, whatever the motive of it may be. "It
is a black moment for humanity and an affront to the civilized world. I regard it", he says,
"as one of the most clumsy and dangerous experiments ever devised."

Where is International law now? Even if the whole world has become subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, these tests that poisoned the air and the earth would be
criminally punishable under domestic law, unless a special enactment were passed
authorizing the dangerous contamination as an act of State In the interests of the USA But
the whole world has not passed into the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. yet and the poison
spreads over the nonAmerican world and nonAmerican air and soil as well as over the
U.S.A. Had there been any international law alive, these test explosions would be
inconceivable.

Russia has at least in theory realized that poisoning uninvolved nations and future
generations of mankind is no legitimate part of any national defence. But the U.S.
government is still arguing as if this crime against innocent nations were a lawful right
and must be considered and negotiated along with other issues related to disarmament.
And Britain loyally joins this claim of her dominant partner. Opinion in Britain has
definitely revolved and repudiated this claim that the poisoning of the world's atmosphere
and land and water can be part of legitimate national defense.

The cessation of the explosions should not depend on the will and pleasure of the nuclear
powers but is a right, which the neutral nations can demand through their governments.
The unqualified assertion of the right of mankind to the purity of the atmosphere with
which the planet is endowed and to the integrity of the hereditary hymen cells must
precede the organisation of any machinery for detection and prevention of evasion. The
wrongdoers have no right to be left alone in their career of infringing this right of
mankind until the machinery to prevent evasion is perfected to their satisfaction, any
more than ordinary criminals are entitled to carry on their trade until the courts and police
are perfected.
What prevents an antitests group of nations in the UN raising the issue whether the UN is
not bound by its Charter unconditionally to ban the poisoning of the earth's atmosphere
by any individual power in its own supposed or even real interests? It would not be
interference in the international affairs of the State, for this poisoning of the air and the
human cells for generations to come is not just a matter of national defence but an
infringement of other people's rights. What prevents even a minority in the UN from
claiming this overriding fundamental right to call for a cessation of wrongdoing, although
the offending powers may secure a majority of votes in favour of continued poisoning. If
the UN regulations do not permit this, the regulations call for amendment in the light of
developments, which had not been foreseen.

The world, Communist and nonCommunist united in one common front against Hitler,
when he proved himself to be a danger to civilization. The nuclear menace is a greater,
far greater menace than Hitler was; and the world must unite against it. What prevents
this but the illusions that Brute Powers creates and which it is the duty of enlightened
nations to dispel with vigour.

It is a shame that over and above the torpor that over unofficial life by reason of
overgovernment all over the world, even governments charged with the sacred duty of
protecting their people by every means should exhibit inertia in a matter of such great
importance to the health of mankind, the purity of the atmosphere and the health of the
animal and vegetable worlds on which man depends for life. All these governments
outside the Cold War seems to be suffering from a deficiency of spirit and courage which
Hippocrates attributed to the people who inhabit temperate lands where seasonal
variations are not severe.

From the day the two atom bombs were burst over Japan I have been saying and writing
about this enemy of mankind continually all these years. Everyone knows in a general
way all about it. Yet, I fear, neither is the knowledge complete nor has it impressed in the
way serious knowledge should impress.

I suggest, therefore, that we should pass a resolution calling upon the Government of
India, in the name of the people of this land and all our neighbouring peoples, to take
steps to bring this issue before the United Nations and drive the issue to a speedy decision
for a prohibitory order to the nuclear powers to desist from any further tests, the sanction
for which command should be the expulsion of the recalcitrant nation from the UN It
may seem ridiculous to do something which may result in an attempt to expel the most
important element in the UN and in the dissolution of the UN itself. But when a great
institution is found Impotent to serve its purpose, it is better that the fact is recognised
and the institution commits suicide than that it should live a false and purposeless life
The wonder that is India
India is defined in the Constitution as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.
It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second most populous country
and the most populous liberal democracy in the world.

India broke the yoke of British colonialism in 1947 to become a modern nation-state after
a struggle for independence that saw the emergence of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal
Nehru as the world leaders and apostle of peace and non-violence.

India has made rapid economic progress in the last decade. It is no wonder sixty years
after independence, India is beginning to deliver on its promise, "unleashing a torrent of
growth and wealth creation that is transforming the lives of millions", as Time magazine
says in a special cover issue. "India's economic clout is beginning to make itself felt on
the international stage, as the nation retakes the place it held as a global-trade giant long
before colonial powers ever arrived there," says the US magazine's August 13 issue.

As we celebrate the success of India as a free nation, we have selected some pearls of
wisdom about the wonder that is India out of legions. Read on...
Bachendri Pal was the first Indian woman to climb the Everest.

Aryabhatta invented the numerical 'Zero'.

Dhirubhai Ambani started the equity cult in India.

The Ellora Caves are located in Maharashtra.

River Narmada flows from the east to the west.

In India, the President gives the inaugural speech on Independence Day.

The 'Panchsheel' treaty was signed India and China.

The McMahon Line is regarded by India as a legal national border with China.

The Radcliffe Line became the border between India and Pakistan in 1947. The border
had already been roughly drawn up by Lord Wavell, the Viceroy of India, but the final
version was drawn by Sir Cyril Radcliffe.

Hindi, the official language of the Union along with English, also refers to a standardised
register of Hindustani termed as khariboli, which soon emerged as the standard dialect.

Mohiniattam is a traditional dance from the South Indian state of Kerala. Mohini is an
Apsara in the Hindu mythology and attam in Malayalam means dance. So Mohiniattam
essentially means 'dance of the enchantress'. The theme of Mohiniattam is all about
showing love and devotion towards God.

The earliest Indian paintings were the rock paintings of pre-historic times, the
petroglyphs as found in places like Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka, and some of them are
older than 5500 BC.

Tollygunge is a metonym for the Bengali film industry, long centered in the Tollygunge
district of Kolkata.

Missionaries of Charity is the organisation which Mother Teresa headed during her
lifetime.

'God of Small Things' was the book for which Arundhati Roy won the Booker prize.

Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was fondly called Priyadarshini.

Rabindranath Tagore was the first Nobel laureate from India.

Vande Mataram is a mixture of two Indian languages - Sanskrit and Bengali.

Mahatma Gandhi had 4 sons - Harilal, Manilal, Ramdas and Devdas. Harilal Mohandas
Gandhi (1888-1948) was the first son of Mahatma Gandhi. The troubled relationship
between Harilal and his father is the subject of a current biography on him, a play, and a
film.

Amitabh Bachchan was named the "Greatest Star of the Millennium" by BBC online poll
in the year 1999.

Satyajit Ray was awarded an honorary Oscar by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts
and Sciences in 1992 for Lifetime. Ray directed 37 films, including feature films,
documentaries and shorts. Ray's first film Pather Panchali won eleven international
prizes, including Best Human Document at Cannes.

Assam has the world's largest river island.

Arati Saha is the first Asian woman to have swum across the English Channel.

The full name of Ba, before her marriage to Mahatma Gandhi, was Kasturba Makanji.
Born to wealthy businessman Gokuldas Makanji, Kasturba married Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi, through arrangement. She sometimes took her husband's place
when he was under arrest.

Rani Laxmibai's childhood name was Manukarnika. She was born at Kashi and died at
Gwalior. She was married to Raja Gangadhar Rao Newalkar, the Maharaja of Jhansi in
1842, and became the queen of Jhansi. After their marriage, she was given the name
Lakshmi Bai.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy founded Brahmo Samaj.

Mahatma Gandhi took out 'Indian Opinion' newspaper in South Africa.

Former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's memorial is called 'Veer Bhoomi'.

Bharatanatyam is thought to have been created by Bharata Muni, a sage from Tamil
Nadu, who wrote the Natya Shastra, the most important ancient treatise on classical
Indian dance. It is also called the fifth Veda in reference to the foundation of Hindu
religion and philosophy.

Kathakali (katha for story, kali for performance or play) is a form of dance-drama which
originated in the South Indian state of Kerala over 500 years ago.

Aishwarya Rai became the first Indian actor to be a member of the jury at the Cannes
Film Festival in 2003

APJ Abdul Kalam has penned the book 'Wings of Fire'

Dr Leela Seth became the first woman Chief Justice of a High Court in India

India launched its first space satellite on April 19, 1975.

Aryabhatta was India's first mathematician.

Brahmi is the oldest Indian script.

Radio broadcasting in India began in 1927.

Hum Log was the first Indian TV soap.

Kiran Desai won the Booker Prize in 2006 for her book 'The Inheritance of Loss'.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru enjoyed the longest tenure as India's Prime Minister.

Atal Behari Vajpayee had the shortest tenure as India's Prime Minister.

Bahrain also celebrates its Independence Day on August 15.

The current national flag of India was adopted on July 22, 1947.

Our Independence Day also coincides with the birthday of famous Indian scholar-
philosopher-yogi Sri Aurobindo.