THE OTHERSIDE of Indian History

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai

1.Hidden history unmasks …… Nehru
Quite some time since my series of blogs on Aurobindo Ghose stopped for temporary reprieve , many friends suggested to me to write on the other-side of the historical spectrum and views held by personalities in conflict. As a democrat groomed by Aringnar Anna, I felt I must place for public consumption historical moments in India. Q: Describe the views of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar on the day of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination ? A: “Great men are of great service to their country but they also, after certain time, a great hindrance to the progress of their country. There is one incident in Roman history which comes to my mind on this occasion. When Caesar was done to death and the matter was reported to Cicero, Cicero said to the messengers : Tell the Romans that your hour of liberty has come. While one regrets the assassination of Mr.Gandhi and one cannot help finding in his heart the echo of the sentiments expressed by Cicero on the assassination of Cicero.’ “Mr.Gandhi had become a positive danger to this country. He had choked all free thought. He was holding together the Congress which is a combination of all the bad and self seeking elements in society who were agreed on no social or moral principle governing the life of society except the one praising and flattering Mr.Gandhi. Such a body is unfit to govern the country. As the Bible says that sometimes good cometh out of evil so also I think that good will come out of the death of Mr.Gandhi. It will release people from bondage to a superman , it will make them think for themselves and it will compel them to stand on their own merits”…..Ambedkar Q: How come Dr.Ambedkar was entrusted with the task of Drafting the Constitution of India ? 2

A: In his book Reminiscences of Nehru Age by M.O.Mathai page 24, the words of Ambedker on accomplishment of the task is mentioned thus : The Hindus wanted Vedas, and they sent for Vyasa, who was not a caste Hindu. The Hindus wanted an epic , and they sent for Valmiki, who was an untouchable. The Hindus wanted a Constitution and they have sent for me….’ Ambedkar. Q:Mahatma Gandhi only strongly recommended Ambedkar to draft the Constitution of India , is it so ? Dr.B.R.

A: In his thesis titled Socio and Political philosophy of Dr.Ambedkar [page 50] P.V.Rathnam states “ Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel wanted to invite Sir Ivor Jennings , an internationally known constitutional expert, who had drafted the Constitution of many Asian countries. Mahatma Gandhi, however advised them not to look for a foreigner when they had within India an outstanding legal constitutional expert Dr.B.R.Ambedkar.” Thus the task was entrusted to Dr.Ambedkar. Yes Gandhiji recommended Dr.Ambedkar. Q; Is it true that Dr.Ambedkar single handedly drafted the Constitution of India ? A: Yes, let me quote from the Constitution Assembly Debate dated November 5 of 1948 wherein T.T.Krishnamachari narrates “ The House is perhaps aware that of the seven members nominated by you, one had resigned from the House and was replaced. One died and was not replaced. One was away in America and his place was not filled up and another person was engaged in State Affairs and there was void to that extent. One or two people were away from Delhi, and perhaps reasons of health does not permit them to attend. So it happened ultimately that the burden of drafting the Constitution fell on Dr.Ambedkar and I have no doubt we are grateful to him for having achieved this task in a manner which is undoubtedly commendable”


Q: Is it true that Dr.Ambedkar found it difficult to print his book Buddha and His Dhamma ? A: Yes it took 5 years for him to write the book. He sought financial help from the Trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Bombay. On March 17 of 1956 writing to the Chairman of Tata Industries Limited Mr.M.R.Masani “ Mr.Tata must have returned by now and so there could be no difficulty in your communicating his mind. I am dreadfully in a hurry and if Mr.Tata refuse my request I like to go with my bowl to another door. On May 1st of 1956 Trustees of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust informed that the book on the life and teaching of Buddha will land them in trouble and controversy, hence sanctioned a donation of Rs 3000 towards publication of the book. Q: What was Jawaharlal Nehru’s response to Dr.Ambedkar’s request to buy 500 copies of his book for libraries ? A: Ambedkar thought Jawaharlal Nehru will buy atleast 500 copies for libraries and distribution to scholars who would be attending the Buddha’s 2500 th anniversary celebration. He wrote to Nehru “ I know your interest in Buddhism. That is why I am writing to you. I hope you will render some help in the matter.” The Great Prime Minister of India replied on September 15th of 1956. “ It will be impossible for us to buy a large number of copies of your book as suggested by you. We had set aside a certain sum for publication on the occasion of the Buddha Jayanti. That sum has been exhausted and in fact exceeded.”


India’s foreign policy makers must watch the Chinese moves in each and every issue in international arena. China had been for years scheming to become the sole Super Power of Asia. Nothing wrong in any nation to aspire for higher status, but that status when it tends to downsize India, it is our duty to counter Chinese dragon. The handing over of Coco island by the Indian foreign policy experts of seventies to Myanmar had paved way for China obtaining it in lease from Myanmar and to build a harbour apart from installing Russian made radars and satellites to spy on Indian Missile programme operated from Orissa, a state of India just facing Coco islands in the west of the Bay of Bengal. Sitting entrenched in Eastern side of Bay of Bengal that too just 40 nautical miles away from Indian Territory of Andaman Nicobar islands, China had established its access and control over Bay of Bengal. The intelligent foreign policy experts who had no broad vision had opened the gateway of Bay of Bengal to the Chinese dragon. But the threats from China are not only in our border but everywhere. Unless India watches every move of China, we will fail in our patriotic duty to preserve our nation and its status among comity of nations. “India and China are now members of the Financial Stability Board, the apex institution to monitor global risks of financial crisis. Their voting shares in the International Monetary Fund will also be slightly increased through an accelerated quota reform process. However post-reform the USA will retain its de-facto veto power with a 17 percent share and the US, EU and Japan will control 53 percent of IMF shares. Individually the shares of US, UK, France and Japan will still be larger than China’s share of fewer than 4 percent.” Hence China


had planned a new offensive according to Professor of National Institute of Public Finance and Policy Mr.Sudipto Mundle. “Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor of the Chinese Central Bank had in past suggested that dollar should be replaced with SDR’s as the new reserve currency. The huge dollar reserves held by Central Banks and other global investors would be severely eroded if the dollar were to suddenly depreciate. Yet these investors cannot easily diversify away from the dollar since this itself would trigger dollar depreciation. The Chinese are particularly concerned, an estimated 1 trillion dollars of their total reserves of around 2 trillion are held in dollar asset. The SDR exchange rate is a weighted average of exchange rates of the major convertible currencies. Accordingly under Zhou’s proposals, China and other countries could convert their reserves from dollars to SDR’s at current exchange rates without any erosion in their value. Implementing such a proposal would also mark the end of the dollar as reserve currency.” This is the game plan of China which has let the cat out of its bag. If China launches SDR missiles to strike at the Dollar regime, India had to toe Chinese line, if Indo-China-Srilanka partnership to ethnic cleansing of Tamils is a forerunner to such cooperation. USA realizing the Chinese designs had been urging India to sign End-use Monitoring Agreement, Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum agreement, and Logistics Support Agreement. China causes grave concern for USA, hence USA urges India to sign these pacts. China had become emboldened to say to USA to concentrate on western Pacific and China will look after eastern Pacific. Pacific Command Chief Admiral Timothy J Keating had recently exposed this game. Are we with USA or are we with China? Is USA a grave danger to the territorial integrity of India or is China, the aggressor who


claims our Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh will be a threat with high magnitude? China had encircled India with tie-ups starting from Myanmar to Srilanka, Maldives to Pakistan and Bangladesh. With harbours in all these countries carefully built from 1990, China had acquired a might India cannot challenge. If China could suggest to USA to divide Pacific Ocean as eastern zone and western zone between them, will it not say to India confine to your coast in Bay of Bengal and from Myanmar China will control half of Bay of Bengal. Will not China with harbours in Pakistan and Maldives suffocate Indian presence in Arabic Ocean? Sitting in Srilanka’s southern tip China could block passage to Bay of Bengal and from Myanmar control Malacca Straits. Each and every step China plans is to establish it as Super power of Asia. It is the neo-colonial power which will colonize Myanmar and Srilanka. In Indian state of Bihar, the influx of Chinese women to marry Indians born in Buddha’s land is silently establishing a Chino-Indian population like early Anglo-Indians. Our foreign policy must be debated in Indian Parliament. Few individuals should not decide the foreign policy of a continent like India with 100 crore population. Ours is Indian Union, though it became unitary due to the trauma of partition, it must be borne that Indian States have a right to shape India’s foreign policy. Consensus can emerge in our National Integration Council, debates in Parliament can offer constructive course corrections, and Cabinet should not be bypassed, few people should not be shouldered with crafting nation’s foreign policy, however super brains they may be. But seeing how China had outwitted us by encircling India, and within India opening a Red corridor from Nepal to Andhra Pradesh where Maoists rule the roost, it becomes evident that China wants India again to become a colony, this time a colony of China will only get conduct certificates from Communist parties and not from Indians with common sense 7

Borders and Boundaries: Follies galore
India must publish maps showing Tibet as independent country under occupation of Chinese. Only then Chinese maps on Jammu and Kashmir could be countered effectively. There is a Tibetan Government in exile within Indian soil and we are within our right to declare Tibet as disputed area which belong to Tibetan people. Having said the way to counter Chinese moves, as impassionate observer of history let me share my thoughts with readers and invite a debate. The maps of 1930 show Indian border in North East sector, which is McMahon line between India’s Assam and Tibet region as Boundary Un-demarcated. In Northwest, North sectors [from Kashmir Ladakh to Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh it was inscribed as boundary undefined. Miss Dorothy Woodman in her book Himalayan Frontiers in 1969 wrote, “The innumerable discrepancies on maps might lead to the most naïve student of cartography to the view that the devil can quote maps to serve its own purpose.” The discrepancies in maps are a disease infecting both sides. Both countries based their claims on erroneous maps. In Indian side as per eminent parliamentarian and scholar Kuldip Nayyar “ The Government itself with drew several official maps and books which did not indicate meticulously a curve here or a bend there or which left the boundary undefined. Many maps of the Survey of India and the books of Publications Division were withdrawn, and there was a circular sent to return all such materials “[Between the Lines p 137-138]. Similarly Chinese Premier Chou–en-lai made it clear in April 1955 during Bandung Conference, that China’s borders with neighbouring countries had not yet been fixed.


BANGLADESH BORDERS: The legacy of past not only haunts India and China, it also hurts India and Bangladesh. There are 111 Indian enclaves in Bangladesh and 51 Bangladesh enclaves in India.” The legacy of high stake card games between two kings, rulers of Cooch Bihar and Rangpur within old Bengal State centuries ago where they used estates as stakes when they ran out of cash, resulted in our nation having Bangladesh enclaves and Bangladesh having our enclaves. This is an issue, which had not been sorted out yet; it applies to the Indo China border dispute. The sudden raking up of a claim over Arunachal Pradesh by China had created heartburns amidst Indian people. Indian people did not expect that Chinese would go on digging a past, a creation of colonialism, to put roadblocks to normalcy between two great civilizations and countries. But whatever China does aims to cut India down to size and to dwarf India as super power, eating into its geo-political spheres of influence. BUREAUCRATIC BLUNDERS India had spent crores of public money to safeguard our borders; thousands of our brave men have given their lives to secure our borders. The War with our neighbour is not a footnote in history, but a chapter of sacrifice made by our army men. The cat on the wall Maharaja Harisingh’s clan[ Dr.Karan Singh ] till today enjoys patronage from the ruling establishment as reward for bartering their loyalty to India. The Indian Army only needed a nod from Indian Prime Minister at a crucial period of Indian history to drive Pakistan out of Kashmir. The Indian Home Minister Sardar Vallabai Patel was urging Indian Prime Minister to give green signal to our Army Chief Major General Kariappa to secure Hyderabad and Kashmir at one go. While Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru consented for army intervention in Hyderabad, which fell for Indian arm in a day, hesitated to give his consent with regard 9

to Kashmir. This indecision resulted in ever bleeding never-ending Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. It is not treason to look back at history. This today BJP claims that nation had paid heavy price for Nehru’s folly. Similarly it is not a sin to pin point the blunders committed by our bureaucrats. Only politicians are portrayed as villains but bureaucrats enjoy immunity. This is bad practice. While workforce of the country, the real masters in a democracy are subjected a hire and fire policy, why not hire and fire policy be framed for bureaucrats and only such a whip will make them deliver goods without delay to the people. I reproduce a letter addressed by me to then Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on 5.1.2004. His government did not act norI hope any government by bureaucrats and for bureaucrats will punish the guilty. But people of the country, the supreme power in a democracy have the right to know where and how it went wrong. Hon’ble Prime Minister of India Thiru.Atal Bihari Vajpayee Respected Atalji Subject: A white paper sought on the Kashmir issue to evolve national consensus and fix responsibility for faulty maps All Indians will echo your feelings with regards to the Pakistan’s bartering away of Kashmiri territory to China, our neighbour. At the moment out of the total area of 222.336 square kilometers of Kashmiri state the possession is as follows: Area of Jammu and Kashmir in possession of India: 101,387 square kilometers. Illegally occupied by Pakistan: 78,114 square kilometers 10

Illegally handed over to China by Pakistan: 42,735 square kilometers Illegal occupation of China and Pakistan: 120,849 square kilometers All this is shown as total area of Jammu and Kashmir 222,336 square kilometers. This figure is shown from 1988/89 to 1999 in all manuals brought out by the Ministry of information and Broadcasting. So while with spirit of nationalism and patriotism we are ready to share your feeling of hurt for Pakistan’s handing over an area of 42,735 square kilometers to China. But let me request your office to trace out my letter-dated 24.8.1999 in which I had complained first about the following grave mistake. I humbly submit that from the Source of INDIA: A REFERENCE MANUAL 1953 brought out by the Publications Division of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in page 1…. “THE AREA OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE WAS GIVEN AS 92,780 square miles which is equivalent to 240,300.20 square kilometers. How could this become 222.336 square kilometers in 1988? Pakistan holds 78,114 square kilometers. China owns 42,735 square kilometers. India owns 101,387 square kilometers. By mistakes committed by our bureaucracy in preparing faulty maps, we have lost 18,036.20 square kilometers. Are we to take it for granted that 18.036.20 square kilometers vanished into thin air? Like Bermuda’s triangle in our earth’s oceans do we have a Bermuda’s triangle in our Ministries, which had swallowed 18,036.20 square kilometers? Who is responsible for this? Who is going to be held accountable for this? Are we going to find scapegoats? Or whether The National Democratic Alliance Government has the moral guts to fix the responsibility on the


Congress governments that caused this national loss to our country? While 1953 Manual says 92,780 square miles equivalent to 240.300.20 square kilometers, in 1960 Edition the area becomes 86,024 square miles equivalent to 222.802.16 square kilometers. Official reference journal published by a Ministry of the Government of India in 1960 at page 24-25, a district wise break up of the area of Jammu And Kashmir State is given. The total of this area arrives at a figure of 84,476 square miles, which is equivalent to 218,792.84 square kilometers. In 1964 Edition page 7 has a different story to tell. It contains two different figures. In the column area figure a) shows 86,023 square miles equivalent to 222.799.57 square kilometers. Figure (b) shows 56665 square miles, which is under Indian possession. This amounts to 146,762.25 square kilometers? In 1965 Edition page 7 changes over to 222.896.78 square kilometers? In 1966 Edition page 7 Area of Jammu and Kashmir once again changed to 222,800 square kilometers? In 1968 Edition page 8 area of Jammu and Kashmir once again changed to 222,870 square kilometers .In 1988-89 edition the area of Jammu and Kashmir was shown as 222.236 square kilometers. In the very same edition in a different page693, the area of Jammu and Kashmir was shown as 222.236 square kilometers and a note inserted which stated “That this area includes 78,114 square kilometers under illegal occupation of Pakistan, 5280 square kilometers illegally handed over by Pakistan to China and 37,555 square kilometers illegally occupied by China “



Q: Concept of Paramountcy and how Princely India came under British umbrella ? A:Lord Wellesley was Governor General of India between 1797 and 1805. In that eight years he concluded almost 100 treaties with Indian princes. The concept of paramountcy led to the establishment of Princely order in India. Wellesley’s policy of subsidiary alliances was an umbrella thought brought princely states in the defensive alliance and mutual guarantee. So when India awaited Independence in August 15th of 1947, it had to break its head over 564 princely states. Q: When British Prime Minister Atlee announced the policy decision on 20th February 1947 to withdraw from India by June 1948, what was the scenario in India ? A: Let me quote The Times London “ Muslim separatism is deriving encouragement from the language of the white paper.” The Princes started dreaming of Third Dominion. Winston Churchill named it as Princestan. The Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes Nawab of Bhopal asked the Princes not to immediately decide joining Indian Constituent Assembly but to wait and watch. Nawab of Bhopal inducted pro-Pakistani officials in the Secretariat of the Chamber. He made a Pakistani Mohammed Zafrullah as his constitutional adviser. Indore was with Bhopal, Jodhpur too joined the bandwagon. With the blessings of Jinnah and with the backing of the Secretary of the Political Department Sir Conrad Cornfield it seems Princely India will be separate entity once India got independence.


Q: Among the princely states who declared independence first, and who changed his colours like chameleon and headed a committee to ban political parties that sought separatism ? A: Diwan of Travancore Sir C.P.Ramasamy Iyer declared on May 9th of 1947 that on the lapse of Paramountcy on August 15th simultaneously with the transfer of power to India, Travancore would declare herself a free and independent State. The wily Brahmin was arrogant that in Delhi he even declined the invitation for lunch extended by Sardar Patel. Sardar Patel directly spoke to the Maharaja over telephone in commanding tone. The question, who is standing in your way ? made the Maharaja shiver in fear and he conveyed his decision to accede to India. Q: How all the princely states were brought into the Indian umbrella ? To whom the credit should go ? A: Definitely not to Nehru. The credit to make 562 princely states accede to India rests on the shoulders of Sardar Patel. In June 1946 Patel spelt his policy: “ The time has arrived when it is necessary for Indian people to deal with the States problem on the basis of collective approach to the Princes as a whole and not to fritter away their energies in isolated battles”. Mountbatten too facilitated by declaring separate negotiations with each and every princely state is ruled out. Q:Plundering natural resources and land scams are not new, even in British India such things happened, and even in independent India it continues, especially in naxal infected Bastar. Tell about this ? A: In September 1946, Bastar had a Raja who was a minor and weakling and a foreigner as its Prime Minister. Bastar had and has rich mineral resources. Then it was mortgaged to Hyderabad State for a long lease. Patel took up the issue with the Political Department of the British. He was told that as the guardian of the 14

minor prince, foreigner Prime Minister can enter into mortgaging a whole state. Patel saw the Prince of Bastar and said “ I felt it was a sin to make him sign such agreement. It was then that I was made fully conscious of the extent to which our interests were prejudiced in every way by the machinations of the Political Department and came to the conclusion the sooner we were rid of these people the better. Their main aim was to further their interests and to cause much damage to India as possible. I came to the conclusion that the best course was to drive out foreigners even at the cost of partition of the country.It was also then that I felt that there was only one way to make the country safe and strong.. and that was unification of rest of India. Q: What did Dr.B.R.Ambedkar suggest when Partition became inevitable ? What happened during partition ? What did Ambedkar think on Gandhiji’s attitude at that time ? A: Dr.Ambedkar proposed partition with complete transfer of the population of the Hindus and Muslims from their respective zones to avert blood shed. As he feared partition brought unprecedented blood shed with mass exodus of 7.30 million Hindu and Sikh refugees to India. Ambedkar felt why did Gandhi never went to fast to prevent Partition, in spite of saying again and again that India can be partitioned only over his dead body ? N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai


Archives of Dravida Peravai Dravida Peravai N.Nandhivarman went to Calcutta in 1999 and there presented a memorandum to then Chief Minister Jyothi Basu dated 3rd June of 1999. Copies were marked to Comrade Budhadeb Bhattacharya, Home, Information and Cultural Affairs Minister, Hon’ble Comrade Indrajit Gupta M.P, Hon’ble Comrade Somnath Chatterjee and Hon’ble Comrade Debabrata Biswas M.P. The letter in verbatim follows: You might be aware that Calcutta High Court on 10th May 1999 has passed an interim injunction in the writ petition No: 1035 of 1999 at the Court of Kalyan Jyothi Sengupta till next hearing in June in the writ petition filed by Dr.Barin De against Sri Aurobindo Bhavan. Our party had the opportunity to go through the archival materials with regard to the documents in the life and found that the trustees of Aurobindo Ashram Pondicherry and their appointees in the Aurobindo Bhavan at Calcutta have all along misled the West Bengal Government and the followers of Aurobindo over the birth place of Aurobindo. Before seeking a Government probe we are reproducing from the Volume 1 of the Aurobindo Archives and Research published in 1977 by Aurobindo Ashram Trust, Pondicherry. Documents in the Life of Aurobindo: Birth: 1.Aurobindo’s birth date and time 15th August 1872, 24 minutes [ one danda= one ghatika] before sun rise at Calcutta, with sun rise calculated at 5.40 AM, the time of birth is 5.16 AM local time or 4.52 AM Indian Standard Time.


A note from the files of Nolini Kanta Gupta : Footnote: The exact time of Aurobindo’s birth is not known. He writes in “About Astrology” [ 288] of “inability to fix the precise moment of my birth. The above computations were apparently made on the basis of recollection of a member of Aurobindo’s family that he was born one danda before sunrise on 15th August 1872. The above statement of the Americans in charge of the archives department indicates that the Trustees are not aware of the exact time of his birth. Similarly the following letters and proceedings of the meeting of the sub-committee of the Aurobindo Centenary committee also clearly reveal that the Trustees are not aware of the exact birth place of Aurobindo. Let me quote all those letters and proceedings: 2.When attention was drawn to several press enquiries particularly in Bengal as to exact birth place of Aurobindo Srijut Nolinikanta Gupta , Secretary of Aurobindo Ghose told PTI “ Aurobindo was born in the house of Late Barrister Manmohan Ghose , a close friend of his father Dr.Krishna Dhan Ghose. The house was in the Theatre Road and the number being most probably 4, we are not aware whether that house still exists or not. A press release dated 2nd September 1949 Aurobindo Ghose was born in my father’s house at 237, Lower Circular Road. In about 1879 my father moved to 4 Theatre Road. Subsequently Mr.Byomkesh Chakraborti, Bar-at-Law occupied 237 Lower Circular Road and I believe it was purchased by him. Later on Late Nalini Ranjan Sirkar purchased the property and put up the new structure after demolishing the old. It is now occupied by the Chinese Consul General.


Letter of Showlata Das [Mrs.Banbihari Das] youngest daughter of Manmohan Ghose dated 11th June 1956. 4. Proceedings of the Meeting of the Sub-Committee of the Aurobindo Centenary Committee held at 10.30 AM on Saturday January 30 of 1971 at National Library, Belvdere, Calcutta-27. The following members were present: 1.Surendra Mohan Ghose, Chairman 2.Dr.Niharranjan Roy 3.Devi Prasad Bhaduri 4.K.N.Mukerjee 5.A.K.Ghose 6. Mrs. D.G.Keshwani 7.H.K.Niyogi 8.Kanti Chaudri, Member-Secretary 1. After long discussion on the various suggestions in regard to the house in which Aurobindo was supposed to have been born, it was decided as follows. A] Arguments in favor of the present 237 Lower Circular Road could not be sustained since this was originally 12 Lower Circular Road, which came to be occupied by the Late Manmohan Ghose not earlier than 1876. B] According to the Bengal Directory 0f 1871 and 1872 , Late Manmohan Ghose is shown as resident of 48, Chowringhee which was part of then Ballard Building facing Theatre Road. It was therefore; very likely that Aurobindo was born at this house which on August 15th of 1872 was shown as the residence of the Late Manmohan Ghose. C] In 1872, according to Bengal Directory [Street Directory] No: 14 Lower Circular Road is also shown against the Late Manmohan Ghose. But in the alphabetical list of residents of the same year Manmohan Ghose is shown as a resident of 48, Chowringhee. D] According to the same directory of 1873, the Late Manmohan Ghose is shown as resident of 14.Lower Circular Road and not 12, Lower Circular Road which is now 237, Lower Circular Road.


2. The Ballard’s Building consisting of numbers 47, 48, 49 and 50 at the corner of Chowringhee and Theatre Road does no longer exist, in fact a multi-storied building is under construction at that place. The question of acquisition of this property does not, therefore arise. 3. But in 1879, the Late Manmohan Ghose rented No: 4 Theatre Road [now No: 8, Theatre Road and continued to live there for about fifteen years. It was in this house that Aurobindo passed a number of his boyhood years from time to time; indeed it is the only house on Theatre Road with which Aurobindo could be associated for a considerable period of time. The committee therefore requests the Government of India and the Government of West Bengal who are now owners of No: 8, Theatre Road to make over and dedicate this property to the nation in the name of Aurobindo. It is needless to reproduce entire proceeding but we have chosen to reproduce in entirety because we want to establish that persons connected with the Bhavan and the Trust in Pondicherry are basing their claims on their assumption that from 1879 Aurobindo lived in that house. Unfortunately to the Trustees, Aurobindo himself in the book Aurobindo on himself and on the Mother published by Aurobindo Ashram in 1953 in page 9 under the title “Early Life in England “states “while in India they were sent for the beginning of their education to an Irish nun’s school in Darjeeling and in 1879 he took his three sons to England.” It is thus crystal clear that Aurobindo had left to England on 1879 as per his own words and how come the sub-committee says that he lived in this house from 1879. Based on this untruth the committee and the trustees of the Bhavan and their parental trust in Pondicherry had misled the West Bengal Government and are responsible for waste of public money to proclaim a building as his birth place and are instrumental in getting Aurobindo Memorial Act 1972 passed. The same coterie propped up by the Pondicherry 19

based Trust are aware of the truth and that may be the reason for these groups to offer Aurobindo Bhavan for construction of a commercial complex. Our party urges the West Bengal Government to probe this matter further and fix responsibility on those who have misled the West Bengal Government and committed a fraud on the Government and followers of Aurobindo…… Yours sincerely N.Nandhivarman, General Secretary Dravida Peravai THE TIMES OF India Calcutta in a report by Sudha G.Tilak dated 13.06.1999 carried this news under the title FRESH DISPUTE OVER AUROBINDO ABODE with due rebuttal by Himanshu Niyogi , a senior member of Aurobindo Samiti who said “ such controversies are raked by vested interests now and then.



Indian Congress founded in 1886 was dilly dallying between Dominion status, which meant independence with a common king and independence with no such binding to a titular head. Only in 1930 it ended its vacillation and proclaimed independence as its goal. After independence the purpose for which Congress party came to the scene had successfully accomplished. Dr.Ambedkar said “Congress was like an army recruited not for the purpose of carrying on Parliamentary democracy, but for the purpose of carrying on political warfare against a foreign government. Seeing this Mr. Gandhi very wisely suggested that the Congress be dissolved and new political parties on party lines are formed for conducting the Government. But leaders of the party were ready in their tents with their clothes to take in their hands the reins of the Government. They refused to listen to Mr. Gandhi’s advice. Q: Why Gandhi wanted the dissolution of the Congress once India obtained independence? What made Gandhi suggest the dissolution of the Congress party? A: Andhra leader T.Prakasam went on collecting donations from people and in many meetings purse was handed over to him, which became a debatable topic in the media. Mahatma Gandhi without naming anyone in general wrote against the practice of receiving purses from people in his magazine Harijan. Sardar Vallababhai Patel wrote angrily to Mr.T.Prakasam and sought explanation. Patel wrote it will set a bad precedent. Mr.T.Prakasam replied that people willfully contributed to compensate his sacrifices during freedom movement. Since Mahatama Gandhi condemned strongly Mr.T.Prakasam handed over the money collected into the coffers of the Congress party. 21

Mahatma Gandhi wanted to write calling for expulsion of Mr.T.Prakasam but was persuaded to drop that idea by Jawaharlal Nehru and Patel. Konda Subba Rao, the whistle blower who brought out this corrupt practice also wrote to Congress President Rajendra Prasad. Congress President asked Congress Secretary Shankar Rao Dev to probe the charges against Former Chief Minister T.Prakasam and then Chief Minister Kumarasamy Raja. Since he could not decide the matter it was handed over to a three member committee comprising Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad and Sardar Patel, who exonerated Mr.T.Prakasam and let off other Ministers since they were not in office and thus closed the chapter in February of 1950. This one case itself justified the suggestion of Mahatma Gandhi that Congress should be disbanded. Corruption was a matter for party to decide and exonerate. This golden rule enunciated by Nehruvian years was sincerely followed till SG scam era. Sorry 2G scam era under Sonia Gandhi’s puppets governing India is what led to SG scam, Sonia Gandhi scams. The Public Accounts Committee which unearthed the Jeep Scam of then Defense Minister Krishna Menon, in its 9th report , told the matter must be handed over to a single or plural judge and the Nehru led Government of the day wrote on 1954 December 18 to the Public Accounts Committee and urged to reconsider its suggestion for judicial probe. When the Public Accounts Committee stood firm, the Government of the day closed that file. Thus Congress set another bad precedent by throwing the Report of the Public Accounts Committee into dustbin and made mockery of Parliamentary democracy. In the famous Mundra scam, the enquiry commission headed by Justice Chagla indicted Finance Minister Mr.T.T.Krishnamachariar and he had to resign, and while accepting his resignation Jawaharlal Nehru gave TTK a conduct 22

certificate hailing his cleanliness, thus brushing aside a Report of an Enquiry Commission. Thus Congress set up a third precedent to throw enquiry commission reports into archives, which resulted in all political leaders inducted by subsequent enquiry commissions getting away without punishment. Hence Mahatma Gandhi’s timely warning to disband Congress as soon as independence was attained assumes significance. Q: Nira Radia is now famous, Win Chadha was lobbyist in Bofors deal, and the role of lobbyists wont end, Bofors story has lesions to recall how it was clinched. Tell what happened in Bofors era, keeping aside 2G era for few minutes away from your memory? A: Let me quote with due thanks to legal luminary Ram Jethmalani {Deccan Chronicle 8th June 2005]: “Defence Secretary Bhatnagar had several meetings, the first of which was on June 7, 1984. There were 4 competing suppliers in the field –Sweden, United Kingdom, France and Austria. Naturally all these suppliers could not be present in person to participate in the negotiations with the Government of India”. All of them acted through one or the other agent. Only the British Government was negotiating through its High Commission. These countries had Consulate, Embassy or High Commission, then why did they engage agents, you need not break your head, Congress culture of governance needs greasing so many palms, and to do that dirty job agents were chosen, who are capable of exploiting all the weaknesses of our bureaucrats from lowest to the top echelons. It took a heroine like Nirra Radia to expose this kind of governance. “Offers were invited in sealed covers by July 23 of 1984. After negotiating committee held 14 meetings only by February 28 of 1985, final decision could be arrived. On that day Army short 23

listed French Sofma gun and Swedish Bofors gun. On May 1985 Defence Secretary Bhatnagar summoned the representatives of the 4 suppliers and told them that Government of India does not want any Indian agents to be involved in the negotiations, and whatever amounts are being paid to Indian agents by the supplier should be reflected in the reduced prices. Till that time Bofors was represented by their Indian agent Mr. Win Chadha, originally an accused, but who died during the proceedings. No decision was taken even up to the 18th meeting of the negotiating committee which took place on December 1985. However the Army on February 18th of 1986 informed the negotiating committee its technical opinion in favor of Bofors gun. At the 20th meeting of the negotiating committee letter of intent was issued to Bofors on March 14 of 1986. Few days before that on March 10th of 1986 in a confirmation letter stated “We hereby confirm that we do not have any representative / agent specially employed in India for this project.” Indian Prime Minister Mr.Rajiv Gandhi who attended the funeral of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme announced the decision to buy Bofors gun on that occasion. Q: Rajiv Gandhi cautiously avoided Indian agents but under Manmohan Singh’s rule lobbyists thrive, and his government taps conversation, makes selective leaks to gain bargaining power for electoral alliances, and works for corporate welfare, how do you substantiate? A: The basic price of Petrol is only Rs 28.93, whereas excise duty of Rs 14.35, plus education tax of 0.43, dealer’s commission of Rs.1.05, customs duty for crude oil Rs 1.1, VAT Rs 5.5, and customs duty on petrol Rs.1.54, Transport Rs 6.00 makes up the figure of Rs 58.90 per litre in India. In 2008 when petrol was sold at Rs 50.64, in Australia equivalent of Rs Rs.31.99, Canada Rs 31.42, Pakistan Rs 36.09, in USA Rs 17.57, Malaysia Rs 30.12, Saudi Arabia Rs 5.71, UAE Rs 15.95,New Zealand Rs 32.28, Qatar Rs 9.82, Bahrain Rs 9.57 were the prices of per litre of petrol. 24

In 2010 Malaysia reduces petrol price from Rs.30.12 per litre to Rs.20.99 and our neigbour Pakistan reduces from Rs 36.09 to Rs 31.43. The incompetent unintelligent Finance Ministers of these countries are reducing the burden on the consumer and Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukerjee in this year imposed import duty and excise duty, further thrown out petroleum prices from government control to the play of market prices. This had hiked petrol price, is one side of the story. Comparing to other countries corporates in India pay less to government to plunder natural resources like gas whereas consumer, the citizen, so called Supreme power in a democracy is burdened. That is why Sunday Indian’s Editor Arindham Choudry says ours is not democracy but demonocracy. American President Obama had said what exists in America is not people’s democracy but corporate democracy. After 2G scam of so called 1.76,000 crore unruly scenes were witnessed in Orissa Assembly over 3, 00,000 crore mining scam. Supreme Court raised the issue of how out of 341 mines 215 are without valid lease or rights are operating in Orissa. Union Government headed by Manmohan Singh and managed by Pranab Mukerjee cannot brush this 3, 00,000 crore mining scam as that happened under Biju Janata Dal rule. As per government estimates there are 15,000 mines operating illegally in various states of India with only 8700 legally functioning mines. The loot out of these mines yet to be computed, and in our country .By illegal mining corporates mint millions whereas consumers bear the brunt of price rise. If these looters were taxed and if those taxes are in proportion to their earning we need not hike petrol prices or other essentials. The iron ore exported by the year 2000-2001 was around Rs 358 crores whereas by 2008-2009 it went up to 21,725 crores. One ton 25

of iron ore was exported from 6000 to 7000 depending upon its grade. The Lok Ayuktha of Karnataka Justice Santhosh Hegde found out that government was getting royalty of Rs 16 to Rs 27 per ton. In 2004, low grade iron ore per ton royalty to Karnataka Government was Rs 4, high grade ore fetched Rs 27 per ton. As per Karnataka government estimates extraction of per ton iron ore costs Rs 150. Even if transport of Rs 250 is added plus royalty of Rs 27, at port the price per ton was Rs 427, whereas export price was equal to Rs 7000. Government was only getting Rs 27 per ton allowing Reddy brothers to pocket huge profits. Santhosh Hegde brought this out. The Planning Commission of India woke up to this loot in 2005 and suggested that at least 10 percent of export price should be taxed. The Manmohan Singh’s clean government waited for 3 years thinking how to subvert this suggestion of the Planning Commission. The Ministry accepted the proposal mooted by Planning Commission in 2009 August, but with a tactic. Government appointed Indian Bureau of Mines to fix the export price in order to calculate taxable royalty. Those officials fixed for low/high grades export price at Rs 1760 and 1949, when actual exports were ranging between 6000 to 7000. To fix 10 percent of royalty for Rs 1760 and 1949 super brain of Pranab Mukerjee got immense satisfaction. Even a child knows that exports are made under Letters of Credit and once loaded in ship, the bill of lading is given and these documents are produced in banks to negotiate bills. If an idiot like me was Finance Minister, I would have ordered for 10 percent deduction for royalty when banks negotiate bills. Ordinary citizen’s taxes could be deducted, but how can corporate be deducted, this government may argue. There is no export duty for minerals but import duty for petroleum products. If this being the case petrol prices have to go up, onion prices should have wings to fly in sky, and our economist Manmohan Singh will be proud of his governance.


Gandhi a prophet wanted Congress to be dismantled, and we are paying the price since his own party had become a puppet of plunderers and profiteers in the corporate world. N.Nandhivarman, General Secretary, Dravida Peravai 53 b, Calve Subburayar Street Puducherry 605001



A criminal appeal No 11 of 2011 arising out of Special Leave petition No 10367 of 2010 in Kailas and others versus State of Maharashtra TR.Taluka P.S came up before Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Markandey Kutju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra on 5 th January 2011. It relates to one Nandha Bhai, aged 25 of Bhil scheduled tribe of Maharashtra who was beaten, kicked, stripped and paraded naked in village road over an illicit relationship with an upper-caste man. Four people were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months, one year and three months in three instances and to pay a fine in each by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahamadnagar under various provisions of Indian Penal Code and under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes[ Prevention of Atrocities Act] 1989.But in High Court they were let off from the hook of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled 28

Tribes [ Prevention of Atrocities Act] 1989 but confirmed conviction under Indian Penal Code to enable them to pay fine of Rs 5000 each to the victim. This matter came up for appeal in Supreme Court before the bench of Learned Judges, who instead of limiting their judgment over legal issues had become historians to declare that India is largely a country of immigrants. The Hindu in its center page quotes these overnight historians and proclaims “A Supreme Court Judgment projects the historical thesis that India is largely a country of old immigrants and that preDravidian aborigines, ancestors of present Adivasis, rather than Dravidians were the original inhabitants of India. Dravidian movement that rules Tamilnadu must debate this in the Legislative Assembly and pass resolution condemning the unnecessary attack uncalled for to denigrate the Dravidian history. At least scholars should have ventured to criticize this part of the judgment. If this goes unchallenged the Aryans would exploit this as gospel. “Hindu law was not uniform for all Hindus and as such codification was the only solution and necessity as it aimed at consolidation of Hindu society” felt Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. He strongly felt that the present Hindu law was inconsistent with the provisions of the article 15 of Constitution that birth shall not discriminate any citizen on ground of birth. Hence his futile attempt to introduce the Hindu Code Bill which was opposed by Rajendra Prasad. Speaking in clause by clause discussion in Parliament Ambedkar said “The fact is that in this country although religions have changed the law has remained one. As early as 1930 the Privy Council in its judgment had lain down that Sikhs were governed by Hindu Law. The application of the code to Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains was a historical development to which they could not give any answer. They could only change the law to make it equitable whenever it went wrong. Dr.Ambedkar would not agree to exclude Punjab from the purview of the Bill. “I would have the Code apply to whole of India or not at all “he thundered. 29

Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru informed Ambedkar that there is opposition both inside and outside to the bill, and the Cabinet would discuss the matter in beginning of September 1951. Dr.Ambedkar was keen to pilot the bill before 1952 General Elections. After passing 4 clauses of the Bill further consideration of the Bill was dropped. So after 4 years I month and 26 days in Cabinet, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar submitted his resignation as Law Minister on 27th September of 1951. If Ambedkar’s vision of a Uniform Code had been realized different Courts interpreting laws in different manner and sympathizing with offenders of the modesty of a woman would not have have happened. Point 1 : “ While North America [ USA and Canada] has new immigrants who came mainly from Europe over the last four or five centuries, India is a country of old immigrants in which people have been coming in over last ten thousand years or so. Probably 92 percent of the people living in India today are descendents of immigrants who came mainly from the North-West and to a lesser extent from North-East. Since this is a point of great importance for the understanding of our country, it is necessary to go into it in some detail, opines Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra. The learned judges have based their opinion on wrong foundations. They say of migrations over last ten thousand years without extending their vision of human migrations from times beyond that. African origins: Genetic Studies by geneticists most prominent among them being Spencer Wells, author of Journey of Man claim to have uncovered evidence based on blood samples taken across the globe that all men who live today are descendents of a man who lived in Africa 60,000 years ago. How did he arrive at such a conclusion ? “ We started mapping the family tree of entire planet taking blood samples from every part of the world. We worked backwards through elimination and matching and it was the strain 30

of Sangene that was most common across the planet. During the worst period of Ice Age 60,000 years ago when the worlds moisture was locked in giant glaciers causing intense draught in Africa the first batch of Africans moved out. website displays pictorial explanation of human migration from Africa. This theory says whole world migrated from Africa, and the claim by learned judges that India had aborigines before migrations took place stands demolished. Gene markers from Trans-Pacific Nations : A geneticanthropological study by University of Madras jointly with Madurai Kamaraj University aims at identifying genetic polymorphisms among select populations to explain biological and cultural aspects of ancient human migration and establish the antecedents of communities in South India, the second continent to be populated by man next to Africa. Homo Floresiensis : Nature magazine in 2004 reported that on a tropical island between Asia and Australia a race of people with three and half foot height lived, and these new human species were named Homo-Floresiensis. Nicholas Wade in his report states: The little floresians lived on the island until at least 13,000 years ago, but they were not pygmy form of modern humans. They were a downsized version of homo-erectus the eastern cousin of Neanderthals of Europe who disappeared 33,000 thousand years ago. Their discovery means that archaic humans who left Africa 1.5 million years earlier than modern people survived for longer into recent times than was previously thought. The Indonesian island of Flores is isolated and before modern times was inhabited by a select group of animals that managed to reach it. These then became subject to unusual evolutionary forces that propelled some to giant size and reduced the size of others. The carnivorous lizards that reached Flores, perhaps on natural rafts became giant sized and still survive although now they are confined mostly to 31

the nearby island of Komodo- they are called Komodo dragons. Elephants because of their buoyancy are surprisingly good swimmers and those that reached Flores evolved to dwarfs from the size of ox. Previous excavations by M.J.Morewood a member of the team that found little Floresians showed that homo erectus arrived on Flores about 8,40,000 years ago as was evident from crude stone tools. Presumably the descendents of the homo erectus became subject to the same evolutionary forces that reduced the size of elephants. The first little Floresian, an adult female was found in September 2003 buried under the 20 feet of silt that coats the floor of Liang Bua Cave in Flores. A team of experts identified the skeleton which was not fossilized as a very small but otherwise normal individual similar to homo erectus, reports New York Times drawing substance from Nature magazine. Neanderthals and Homo erectus disappeared just before modern humans arrived, and now findings point out to homo-floresiensis. Who is the immigrant who is not the immigrant, how can learned judges debate and decide, when evolutionary history is still shrouded in mystery. This makes us think why they chose to grant immigrant status to Dravidians ? It is not a hidden secret. The book Hidden History of Human Race pushes back the horizons of our amnesia not just 12,000 or 20,000 years , but millions of years into the past and showing everything we have been taught to believe about the origins of evolution of our species rests on the shaky foundation of academic opinion and on a highly selective sampling of research results. Cremo and Thompson, the two authors of this book then set about putting the record straight by showing all other research results that have been edited out of record during the past two centuries not because there was anything wrong or bogus about the results themselves but simply because they did not fit with prevailing academic opinion. Anomalous and out of place discoveries reported by Cremo and 32

Thompson in the Hidden history of Human Race include convincing evidence that anatomically modern humans may have been present on the Earth not just for 1,00,000 years or less [the orthodox view] but for millions of years and that metal objects of advance design may have been in use at equally early periods. Moreover although sensational claims have been made before about out of place artifacts, they have never been supported by such overwhelming and utterly convincing documentation as Cremo and Thompson, writes Graham Hancock in his preface. So on a question of human evolution when accepted theories are shaken by new discoveries, when human spread due to continental drift had yet to be explained beyond an iota of doubt, learned judges want to restrict historical enquiry to 10,000 years only and confer immigrant status on Dravidians in order to hide the 1500 year old immigrants, so called Aryans. If all continents had once been a super continent of Pangaea, all of us should be immigrants. If Pangaea split into two super continents, we should be immigrants from Gondwanaland. This Tamil literature speaks as submerged continent of Kumari and in locating that continent confusing theories existed. Now it is crystal clear that submerged lands extend up to Pacific Ocean and gene markers establish the continuity from South India to Australia and Pacific ocean islands. Point 2 : Learned Judges who learnt law , raised an unnecessary, irrelevant question to the case they were dealing with, and examined who were the original inhabitants of India ? as if it is vested upon them to deliver their judgment. “ At one time it was believed that the Dravidians were the original inhabitants. However this view has been considerably modified subsequently and now the generally accepted belief is that the original inhabitants of India were the pre-dravidian aborigines , that is ancestors of the present tribals or adivasis [ scheduled tribes].


“Blood samples from three South Indian populations , the Piranmalai Kallars, Yadhavas and Saurastrians all of whom live in Madurai, the Azhagiri land, have showed up genetic markers identical to those found in 10 percent of Malaysians, 15 percent of New Guineans, and 60 percent of Australian aborigines evidence which had not been obtained by archaeology so far” says Professor R.M.Pitchaiappan Head of the Department of Immunology , School of Biological Sciences. Madurai Kamaraj University. These blood samples were collected from hill, coastal and plain based communities like Piranmalai Kallars,Yadhavas, Saurastrians, Moolakurumbas, Kurumbas, Irulas, Paniyas, Kotas, Thodas, Kanikars, and Paravars. What has come as a surprise is nearly 50 percent of a 30,000 year old gene marker among Piranmalai Kallars. The Yadhavas and Saurastrians possessed a 10,000 year old gene marker. So instead of trying to look for immigrants from North West, wherefrom Aryans came, the learned judges must look for immigration from Pacific and Indian Ocean lands of submergence. The gene markers of South Indian Dravidian people proves to be 30,000 year old and disproves the theory propounded by learned judges that they are immigrants and not aborigines. Now let us quote from passages of renowned scholars, which speak Dravidians migrated to Australia . Elkin [1938] : The available evidence points to Southern India as their [ Australian aboriginals] hiving off ground. Lockwood [ 1963] All Australian aborigines are supposed to be descended from Dravidians who migrated about 15000 years [ later research has pushed back this date to beyond 40,000 years ago from India and Ceylon. Aboriginal Australians have been in that continent for more than 40,000 years and though proto-australian language brought by them into Australia millennia ago has now diversified into more than 200 languages scholars like R.M.W.Dixon [ The languages of 34

Australia , Cambridge University Press, 1980] agree that all of them still retain features of their original genetic unity. Dixon points out that as regards of affinity of Proto-Australian with other language families of the world only the Dravidian suggestion deserves to be taken seriously. P.Ramanathan in his research paper raises a pertinent question to which learned judges have to blink without proper reply. “ When the Australian aborigines entered Australian continent more than 40,000 years ago the sea level was 400 to 600 feet lower than now. The continental shelf now lying submerged under the sea was then part of the land mass and land areas of all continents were larger, Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania were all comprised in one big continent. Only a few miles of sea would have separated Timor from that big continent. It is considered the ancestors of all Australian aborigines entered Australia by catamarans and other mode from Timor and Indonesian islands after crossing the narrow sea in few hours. Once they entered Australia it is thought that they were able to spread throughout Australia and Tasmania within about 500 years as established by the archaeological records. By 15000 B.C sea level rose about 200 feet. It further rose and reached present levels by 6000 B.C. Thus Australia had been a separate island continent for about 8000 years whose inhabitants i.e aboriginals have had no contact with the peoples of anyother continent since then. This was the position till Europeans discovered the continent in 18th century.” “ If as assumed under the model of Dravidian Descent” the protoDravidians had left the near-east by 3000 B.C, and reached Tamilnadu by 1000 B.C how could there be such remarkable genetic similarities between Tamil on the one hand and the Australian aboriginal languages on the other hand spoken by people who were cut off from rest of mankind for 8000 years ? ”asks P.Ramanathan.


So Dravidians migrated towards East, they are not immigrants from East. If scholars establish that even Australian aboriginals have descended from Dravidians, how come learned judges adopt a policy to show Indian aboriginals as not belonging to Dravidian family. May be the Aryan mind is disturbed over the fact they are immigrants and wants to thrust that status on Dravidians and find sadistic satisfaction. I could see neither logic nor legal compulsion in judges choosing to interpret Indian history in a case which has no relevance to this question. Dravida Peravai condemns this portion of their judgment wherein they have tried to heap insult to Dravidian history, and we thank The Hindu dated January 12 of 2011 for having brought this fact to light, for whatever reasons, and provoked the Dravidian spirit.

N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful