Politics of Assassinations

In August 2008, Rahul Gandhi signed a secret MoU with China in the overbearing presence of Sonia Gandhi and Xi Jinping. Indians still do not have any clue about the contents of the MoU. The picture of this signing ceremony has gone viral, in which both Sonia and Xi Jinping appear so indulgent. Two months after this signing of MoU, 26/11 happened. It was planned, executed and orchestrated by thePakistan establishment. The orchestration part involved facilitation by some players in the Indian establishment as well. Given the strategic embrace of China with Pakistan, it is impossible that China had no inkling about this attack. This attack was bound to attract fierce retribution by India, and could not have been carried out without some sort of Chinese assurance.26\11 was a consequence of the triangular geopolitical imperative of Pakistan, China and the then ruling political dispensation in India. So the question that the former minister Manish Tiwari must answer is: “given the collusion, was response possible?” Congress leader and her key lieutenants, not necessarily her party, must have assured Pakistan and China of non-retribution, otherwise Pakistan, which had been pushed in dire corner by the ongoing operations in Af-Pak region, could not have been so fool hardy to open another front. It seems that Congress leader was suffering from acute anxiety over the looming elections in 2009. Under the Indian democratic setup, there was only one way and that was to split, demoralize and demonize the majority community. Thus the desperate need to create the bogey of Hindu Terror, so as to plant the seeds of self-doubt amongst the Hindus and to divide the anger against Jihadis in India and Pakistan. Probably the conspirators Hindu Terror were motivated by the happenings in the aftermath of the assassination of Gandhi. There was provoked violence by a certain political class against the Brahmins in Maharashtra in the aftermath of the assassination, since NathuramGodse was a Brahmin. Several houses of Brahmins were burnt down. The assassination was used as a psychological instrument to treat the wounds of those who had suffered genocide due to partition, by means of ‘anger division therapy.’

The biggest beneficiary of Gandhi’s assassination was Nehru, who could not have otherwise remained politically so formidable for next 16 years. Did the conspirators of 26/11 take a leaf out of this historical precedence? Indeed, the assassination of Gandhi was by an individual, but the powers that be, had definitely channelized the hatred of the individual to perform the extreme act of assassination. It appears that it was very deftly done by the British, who were extremely apprehensive about the strategic and geopolitical future of Britain in India after transfer of power. It defies imagination that how the most important and vulnerable personality of Independent India, was rendered so unsecure that an assassin could eliminate him with the ease that NathuramGodse did. Before independence, whenever Gandhi travelled by train, which he did in third class compartment, he was accompanied by at least dozen Congress workers who travelled as co-passengers in the capacity of ordinary traveler for his security. This of course was without the knowledge of Gandhi. Sarojini Naidu had famously quipped: “it cost a lot to keep him (Gandhi) poor”. About ten days prior the assassination of Gandhi, there was a bomb attack on him by Madan Lal Pahwa. It is inconceivable and intriguing that how after this attack Gandhi’s security was so porous. Did some politicians and official conspire to keep it so porous? Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre in their book “Freedom at Midnight” in Page No. 411-412 write that Edwina Mountbatten had visited Mr. Gandhi after the bomb attack and praised his bravery, to which Mr. Gandhi retorted that ‘I have shown no bravery’. He further said that when bomb blast occurred, he guessed that some Army Unit was carrying out firing practice. He then prophetically said: “If someone fired at me point blank and I faced his bullet with a smile, repeating the name of Rama, then I should indeed be deserving of congratulations!” It is impossible that Pt Nehru was not aware about this conversation.

As per the book, after the bomb attack, three messages reached DIG of the Delhi Police D.W. Mehra, who was suffering from 103° fever. The first message informed about the bomb attack and that the thrower had been arrested. The second message, two hours later informed that the thrower was resisting interrogation, therefore Mehra authorized ‘third degree’. Mehra informed his superior, the head of Delhi Police, D.J. Sanjeevi, who was the head of IB, but had politically maneuvered to enjoy the position, perks and pomp of the office of Delhi Police Chief. He had once explained to Mehra: “Before I retire, I want a flag on my car, a jeep escort and a guard presenting arms when I get to the office”. Sanjeevi prevailed upon Mehra, “Don’t bother about Madanlal’s case, I’ll handle the investigation myself”. Later, the book mentions: “the enquiry so well begun was now to be pursued in a manner so desultory, so ineffectual that it would still, (so) many years later inflame controversy in India”. Incidentally, one of the conspirators was a person called Karkare. It is rather an uncanny coincidence that in 26/11 another police officer Hemant Karkare was martyred. A politician unabashedly tried to sully the image of this martyr. He insinuated that he was in constant communication with Mr. Karkare on matters of Hindu Terror before and during 26/11. No patriotic police officer will violate the ‘Official Secret Act’ in such a brazen manner! The lackadaisical role of MrSanjeevi in the investigation of Mr. Gandhi’s assassination raises doubts. The Indian Intelligence Bureau (IB), before and after independence has been rated as one of the most formidable intelligence organizations in the world. But post transfer of power, ambitious officers like Sanjeevi, willing to conspire with the new political masters, were not rare. The same phenomenon was in evidence during 26/11. The political masters had ensured that India’s war room during the attack was in Pakistan. The Home Secretary with his key officials were enjoying Pakistan’s hospitality in Murree, even as the attack went on. There was one official from the IB, Rajendra Kumar, who probably smelt conspiracy and therefore decided to make an exit from Pakistan on some pretext. Consequently, the government of the day tried to intimidate and victimize him. He was asked to report to CBI for questioning, something unprecedented and an anti-national act. It is again no surprise that the politicians never permitted the formidable Intelligence Bureau to investigate the disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in any convincing manner. More often than not, in India the change of leadership at the helm has been under suspicious circumstances. It appears that there was a symbiotic relationship between the selection of Mr. Nehru as Prime Minister and the transfer of power on 15-August-1947. One cannot ignore the impression that the appointment of Mr. Nehru as prime minister was a pre-condition for transfer of power by the British authorities. Probably, Nehru would have never become Prime Minister if Netaji was on the scene, even if he did, he would have not persisted for such a long period. China attacked India in 1962, the Communists welcomed it. The Communists had found an external way to dislodge Nehru. Nevertheless, Nehru survived, but the shine was gone and so did his health. It is with the same intention to dislodge Modi that Mr. Nehru’s great grandchild Rahul Gandhi visited the Chinese Embassy surreptitiously during the height of Doklam crisis in 2017. When Nehru died, the US-Soviet Cold War was at its peak. This after a gap of two decades has given way to a new US-China Cold War. Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi have clearly identified themselves with this camp. It is averred that Manmohan Singh was in the opposite camp.The standoff between the two camps on the issue of Indo-US nuclear deal was quite stark. This sort of ruling arrangement at the behest two opposite external leverages is not strange during Cold War. Sonia and her son are feverishly rooting for China to be increasingly aggressive towards India so as to discredit the Modi government, hence the canard of Chinese intrusions. Similarly ,Mrs Indira Gandhi had gravitated towards the Soviet camp out of political compulsions, as also geopolitical imperatives. During the peak of that Cold War, Lal Bahadur Shashtri lost his life under mysterious circumstances. Had his life not been cut short, Mrs. Gandhi may not have enjoyed almost 17 years of prime ministership. During that period, India’s strategic and economic stock in the international arena was very low. Slogans like ‘greebihatao’ was the indicator of India’s economic vulnerabilities and standing in the comity of nations. India was considered incorrigibly third world countries, most watchers considered incorrigible. It is for this reason that Shashtri’s demise did not create any ripples. The US at that time was beset with the Vietnam problem. The Soviet Union extended unstinted support to India during the 1971 War, but not without a price. It is believed that the then Indian government mutilated the Indian Constitution by inserting the words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Secularism’ in the preamble at the behest of Soviet Union during emergency. The purpose of this ideological makeover was to put India permanently in the Soviet orbit. The collapse of Soviet Union at that time was unthinkable. All through these years, the CPI remained a close ally of Mrs. Gandhi. The 1971 war had engendered a new Cold War dynamics in the region. The new Pakistani establishment of truncated Pakistan was desperate to avenge the loss of East Pakistan (Now Bangladesh). Its strategic benefactors US and Britain also wanted to teach India a lesson. Together these countries gave birth to ‘Khalistani Movement’, which culminated into ‘Op Blue Star’ in 1984, and the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi by her Sikh security personnel. This was not just an individual act of perceived revenge but result of a wide conspiracy. Unfortunately, the conspiracy part has been totally ignored. The anger of the community in this case was easily exploitable, and as in the case of NathuramGodse, it was channelized, towards this act. For efficient Intelligence Agencies, such channelizations is an established practice. If Mrs Gandhi had not been assassinated, and had Sanjay Gandhi not met with air crash under doubtful circumstances, Rajiv Gandhi would have never been the Prime Minister. The Eelem War in Sri Lanka by the LTTE, which lasted for 20 years, had a strong backing from the Church. A large number of LTTE leadership of Jaffna were Christians with Hindu names, including Prabhakaran. The LTTE was finally defeated when Karuna and his Tamil Hindu of Eastern Sri Lanka quit the LTTE. Had Rajiv Gandhi not deployed the IPKF and violated the interest of the Church, he would have lived. After the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, PV Narsimha Rao emerged beyond a ‘stopgap’ arrangement. This ‘stopgap’ proved to be strong patriotic mettle and therfore incurred the enmity of Congress leader to an extent that he was not permitted his final journey from India’s capital, New Delhi, as if he was some ‘Bahadur Shah Zafar’. The military-intelligence establishment of Pakistan has various non-state actors in the subcontinent, i.e. LeT, JeM, HM, Deobandis, JeI, Taliban, Islamic State, PFI, Dawood network, Indian Mujahedeen, Khalistanis and the political parties linked to them. These non-state actors have struck links with the Maoists. These non-state actors have made several attempts to assassinate Modi. They have failed becausethe majority is united.