PAGES

Friday, February 17, 2017

‘USEFUL IDIOTS’ & FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!

John Storey might have been writing about cultural studies in Britain but his observation about all basic assumptions of cultural studies being Marxist is equally relevant to the Indian context:

“…This is not to say that all practitioners of cultural studies are Marxists, but that ‘cultural studies’ is itself grounded in Marxism. All its major texts are informed, one way or another, by Marxism; whether or not their authors regard themselves as Marxist, post-Marxist or rhetorical Marxists (using rhetoric, vocabulary, models, etc., without, necessarily, a commitment to the politics).”2

The relevance of the observation to the issue under discussion will be apparent if one remembers that Marxists can reconcile diametrically opposing views with the aid of ‘dialectical materialism’. As in Britain, the arts and culture sphere in India too has come to be dominated by Marxists and their variants Storey described. There is no dearth of ‘useful idiots’,3 in the public sphere, either in the media or in that amorphous mass called the ‘public intellectuals’. The ‘public intellectuals’ do not have to necessarily come up with ideas that solve the mysteries of the universe or be able to find solutions to the myriad problems that daunt our society. Their skill-set, to use the human resources jargon of the information technology age, includes glib talk, an ability to write gobbledygook liberally sprinkled with socialist clichés and an infinite capacity for networking with the high and mighty. For them, who they know is the ‘seed capital’; what they know is inconsequential. In short, they are literary and cultural wheeler-dealers. They have acquired the enviable Marxist acumen of being able to reconcile diametrically opposing propositions, with élan. The politicians find the ‘useful idiots’, well, useful and the ‘useful idiots’ could do with political patronage. Thus the two have developed a symbiotic relationship. It was one of those, who had acquired a name as a litterateur, who had advised Rajiv Gandhi to ban the Satanic Verses. It was probably what Rajiv Gandhi wanted to do anyway to propitiate a political constituency, but when the advice came from a litterateur, it had acquired an ‘intellectual stamp’. It is another matter the litterateur acquired his name and fame by writing semi-porn fiction and publishing collections of ribald jokes, not all of which were his own. His ability to network with the media while being a press officer in the government came in handy. He could call in old favours and what the British call the ‘old boy network’ or the ‘charmed circle’ came in with offers of syndicated columns as post-retirement sinecures.

It was said that till the book was banned in India in 1988, not many knew of it, although Salman Rushdie had published three books earlier and won a Booker prize for his second novel, Midnight’s Children (1981). It was after the Indian ban that the world noticed it and Ayatollah Khomeini had issued the infamous fatwa and a bounty on Salman Rushdie’s head. The ban and the fatwa condemned Rushdie into exile, and to live incognito for a long time. The ‘curious incident’, as Sherlock Holmes told inspector Gregory in The Adventure of Silver Blaze, was not what the dog did but that ‘the dog did nothing’! In this case the curious thing was the ‘useful idiots’ did nothing. They did not cry, ‘artistic freedom was being trampled upon’, till their throats turned hoarse. Nobody returned their Sahitya Akademi or Padma awards!

However, the famous litterateur, who recommended banning the book, had had a change of heart in 2010. What could be the motive? One could only surmise, but was it self-justification, remorse or mendacity? In his syndicated column, he urged his readers to look at the positive side of the ban. He sheepishly explained that the ban had immensely helped Rushdie and his book with increased sales. Thank him for small mercies, for he did not justify the bounty on Rushdie’s head, reasoning it had garnered him international sympathy! None but an ‘intellectual’ like the ‘litterateur’ could come up with such a ‘brainy’ idea: ‘ban books to increase their sales’! Even Marxists would be stumped as the reasoning was beyond their beloved ‘dialectical materialism’.

When the eminent columnist T. J. S. George had to run for cover for offending, a ‘particular community’ to use evasive journalese — which expression does not seem to circumscribe ‘freedom of expression’, again the ‘useful idiots’ were not up in arms to protest. The media too tasted the wrath of the ‘particular community’ after the Deccan Herald affair in 1986, and when offices of all the four main newspapers in Bengaluru were attacked on different occasions. The lessons learnt almost a decade ago seem to have long lasting effect, for the media did not venture to express solidarity with its Danish brethren in the recent cartoon controversy. Its condemnation in the Charlie Hebdo massacre was too muted and not unqualified, as we shall see latter.

However, it would be inappropriate to inculpate the ‘particular community’ alone of intolerance of cultural and media freedom, when it offends their sensibilities. The ‘useful idiots’ were equally quiescent when recently, the secular party workers of DMK burnt down the offices, along with three unfortunate employees of Dinakaran in Tamil Nadu, all in the ‘good cause’ of the internal power-struggle in the ruling dynasty there. Contrast this with the campaign it ran when some Hindu organisations protested against the making of Water. The social malady the movie sought to project was no doubt an anachronism, but is a century old and no longer exists. The ideological fatherlands of our left-liberal intellectuals did not shy away from curtailing artistic freedoms. The land of Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev banned Dr. Zhivago and prevented its author, Boris Pasternak from receiving the Nobel Prize. Another Nobel winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who exposed the plight of soviet intellectuals in his novel, The First Circle, was exiled. The land of Mao ‘respects’ the ‘freedom of expression’ much more brazenly: in the Tiananmen Square Massacre, in 1989, it gunned down between 2000 and 3000 unarmed civilians — intellectuals, labour activists and students — protesting against galloping corruption in the ruling communist party.

....................................

2 Storey, John. (1994). “Introduction: The Study of Popular Culture and Cultural Studies” In Storey, John (Ed.) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. Harlow. Pearson Education. p. xi

3 The phrase has often been attributed to Lenin, but it appears he had never aid it. See Safire, William. (1987). “On Language”. The New York Times Magazine. April 12, 1987. Accessible from http://goo.gl/PhkIxn  

Excerpted from ‘ARTISTIC FREEDOM & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY’: ‘TWISTING FACTS TO SUIT THEORIES’ & OTHER SELECTIONS FROM VOXINDICA. p. 26-30.

See the post dated December 10, 2016 below to view the book's CONTENTS.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS: LEADING LIGHTS OF THE SOCIETY OR WEATHERCOCKS?

[...] Leadership literature has an unverified story that explains the seamy side of leadership of mass movements. During the days of the French revolution, so goes the story, a newspaperman was having a tête-à-tête with a leader of the revolution in a Paris café. As they were sipping coffee and chatting, a wildly howling mob shouting slogans stomped by. The newspaperman wondered what the procession was about. On hearing this, the ‘leader’ shouted, ‘Oh my God, I am supposed to lead the procession’ and ran out. At times, when mass movements acquire a momentum of their own, ‘revolutionary’ leaders might have to follow the mobs while pretending they were leading. It is a fact of life of leading mass movements.

On the other hand, the intellectuals of a society are not weathercocks but its leading lights. They do not (and should not) sometimes follow pretending always to lead. They should possess the moral fibre and intellectual integrity to pursue ideals even if they are unpopular. The words ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity’ are interchangeable but are paired to amplify the meaning, in a figure of speech known as synonymia. The word ‘integrity’ is derived from the mathematical term ‘integer’, meaning a whole number, undivided or complete. When someone is said to be honest or has integrity, there can be no ‘partial honesty’ or ‘fractional integrity’. He either is honest or has integrity, or not. Lamentably many of our public intellectuals fail in this test. If a society cannot provide the protection needed for free expression of ideas, it is the public intellectuals who should hold themselves responsible for their failure to create the ambience for free flow of ideas. If the public intellectuals swing with political winds they cannot expect the society to conform to abstract ideals. The issue of freedom of expression may be cited as an example. Is it absolute or are there limits to it? If the public intellectuals champion absolute freedom on one occasion, but argue alibis for scuttling it on another for political reasons, their vacillation cannot advance the cause of freedom of expression. It keeps the society splintered by competitive populism. [...] 

Excerpted from ‘INTRODUCTION’: ‘TWISTING FACTS TO SUIT THEORIES’ & OTHER SELECTIONS FROM VOXINDICA. p. 20-21. 

See the post dated December 10, 2016 below to view the book's CONTENTS.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

'TWISTING FACTS TO SUIT THEORIES' & OTHER SELECTIONS FROM VOXINDICA

Meticulously researched and written citing about 250 references, the book

Exposes the pusillanimity of the Indian intelligentsia!

Exposes the hypocrisy and double standards of the Indian media!

Exposes the deviousness behind writing and teaching of Indian history!

Exposes the hollowness and treachery of Indian secularism!
...................................................................
AVAILABLE @ ATTRACTIVE DISCOUNT ON THE COVER PRICE! THROUGH AMAZON ONLINE STORES: 
...................................................................
LINK FOR ORDERING YOUR COPY FROM INDIA: 
https://goo.gl/FWtTsJ


LINK FOR ORDERING YOUR COPY FROM OUTSIDE INDIA:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/9352074173


ORDER YOUR COPY NOW!
...................................................................
The book addresses key issues that concern the Indian society today: freedom of expressionmedia objectivitythe skewed concept of Indian secularism and the teaching of doctored history

Why is the majority religion always at the receiving end in the name of ‘secularism’? Why does ‘secularism’ connote one obligation for practitioners of the majority religion and another for the minorities? Why does the word ‘secularism’ have one meaning in the Kashmir valley and another in the rest of India? 

Why do we teach ‘doctored’ history in our schools and colleges? If, as is feared, teaching about the atrocities of long gone invaders exacerbates communal tensions, why does the news media show gory images of something happened in the recent past again and again, exaggerating them a thousand-fold? Does it promote communal harmony? Why does the news media magnify even minute excesses of the one side and at the same time wilfully and completely airbrush similar misdemeanours of the other? 

These are the questions that should be asked of the Indian milieu, which has come to be dominated by the oxymoronic ‘left-liberal’ for far too long. If ever a phrase justifies being termed an oxymoron then it is ‘left-liberal’. The ‘left-liberal’ are neither left nor liberal. And there would not be anyone more illiberal than them. They call anyone who disagrees with them or anyone with whom they disagree, ‘Fascists’! The milieu needs correction. It needs voices that project the right perspective.  This book attempts to provide that perspective.

For quite some time now, there have been suggestions from well-wishers to publish the contents of my blog site (http://www.voxindica.net/) in book form. I have resisted the suggestions initially as I felt the content that goes into blogs and websites is by and large topical and may at the most have academic referential value. Why publish it in book form?

While it is true many of the events that blogs narrate are of a transient nature, the issues that trigger the events quite often have long lasting effect. For example, the impact of the events triggered by the publication of a short story in Deccan Herald in 1986 is felt even today, thirty years later. The events cast such terror in what social-psychologists call ‘the collective consciousness’ of the Indian media that the issue is not invoked even as an example of an attack on the freedom of expression. In point of fact it would be an instructive case study worthy of discussion in journalism and social science classrooms. Consumed by dhimmitude, intrepid champions of freedom of expression live in Orwellian denial blanking off the events from memory.  
When I finally gave in to accept suggestions to bring out the contents of VOXINDICA in book form, the entire content had to be thoroughly rewritten, updated and suitably referenced, using the original blogs as the kernel or the starting point. The internet links referencing newspaper articles are currently valid. They may or may not work in future. Those who wish to view the referenced articles may do so by looking them up in the archives, based on the following details provided: title, date and names of reporters wherever by-lined.

CONTENTS
FOREWORD

INTRODUCTION                                                                                                                

SECTION I − FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

ARTISTIC FREEDOM & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
              
              SECULAR BIASES
              COURTESANS NOT GODDESSES
              IS ARTISTIC FREEDOM ABSOLUTE?
              SURPRISING VERDICT
              FALLACY, IGNORANCE OR MISCHIEF?
              YALE UNIVERSITY EXAMPLE
              GRATUITOUS OBITER DICTA

THE CURIOUS CASE OF DECCAN CHRONICLE AS THE CHAMPION OF FREEDOM OF         EXPRESSION

CHARLIE HEBDO MASSACRE & INDIAN INTELLECTUAL CHICANERY

SONIA & RAHUL MORE VENERABLE THAN ‘SITA & SARASWATI’?

SECTION II − TWISTING FACTS TO SUIT THEORIES

A LeT OPERATION IN J&K AND A DETENTION IN THE US! 

A WORM’S-EYE VIEW OF THE STATESMAN & THE TIMES OF INDIA

‘SUE WILEY’, ECONOMISING TRUTH & DAMAGING DISTORTIONS

             SUE WILEY 
               ECONOMIZING TRUTH & DAMAGING DISTORTIONS

ANGRY JANES, MAD TOMS & ‘INTERNET HINDUS’

               ANGRY JANES & MAD TOMS
               WHO OWNS THE MEDIA?
               WHAT IS OUTLOOK’S PROBLEM?

IBN-LIVE 'DISREGARDS' TRUTH

               HINDUTWA, SECULAR POLARITY
               SECULAR HEADLINE WRITING
               LIES, DAMN LIES & SECULAR LIES
               THE MORE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE

MEDIA AND ETHICS IN BRITAIN AND INDIA

FACTS ARE FLUID – COMMENT IS SACRED!

STING MERCHANTS & TRUTH FAIRIES

NEW YORK TIMES’ OUTSOURCED ‘INDIAN-SECULARISM’

DOROTHY DIXERS AND GRAPEFRUITS

NATWAR SINGH AND THE HINDU PARALLAX

INDIAN MEDIA’S ‘DEUS EX MACHINA’


LAZY, TABLOID, STEREOTYPE JOURNALISM


SECTION III − A DECADE OF SECULAR LIES

A REQUIEM FOR GODHRA

               THE TRAUMA OF BURNING
               THE LONELINESS OF PAIN
               NO WREATHS FOR THE KARSEVAKS!
               THE POLITICS OF DEATH

THE SECULAR GALAHADS OF JUSTICE!

               THE NEW KATHERINE MAYO
               THE BENT COPS
               THE HIRED GUNS

A DECADE OF SECULAR LIES

               THE KANGAROO COURTS
               JUSTICE TEWATIA COMMITTEE REPORT

HISTORY OF BLOODIER RIOTS

ENCOUNTERS, REAL, FAKE OR OPTICAL ILLUSION?

              ‘GANDHIANS WITH GUNS’
               ‘USEFUL IDIOTS’, EMPATHIZING TERROR?
               ENCOUNTERS, ENCOUNTERS, ENCOUNTERED!

SECTION IV − SHOULD WE REWRITE HISTORY?

HISTORICAL DILEMMAS

SHOULD WE REWRITE HISTORY?

RATIONALIZING GENOCIDE?
LEARNING OR POLITICAL CONDITIONING?

INTEGRATION OF INDIA – A TEST OF LEADERSHIP

JUNAGADH & HYDERABAD SNATCHING VICTORY FROM JAWS OF DEFEAT
JAMMU & KASHMIR SNATCHING DEFEAT FROM JAWS OF VICTORY
INTRODUCTION
MOUNTBATTEN’S FOXY ROLE
JUNAGADH
HYDERABAD
JAMMU & KASHMIR
PLEBISCITE RESOLUTION SABOTAGED BY PAKISTAN
STRATEGIC BLUNDER - 1949 NY GIFT

INDIA CHINA WAR 1962

INDIAN SHAME - CHINESE PERFIDY
THE TIBET BLUNDER
THE CHINESE FIFTH COLUMN

SECTION V − INDIAN SECULARISM

RAM JANMA BHUMI IN HIGH COURT

HOW PSEUDO-EXPERTS FAILED PSEUDO-SECULARS
PERVERSION OF HISTORY
IS A TEMPLE AT AYODHYA AGAINST REPUBLICAN IDEAL?
HAS THE COUNTRY MOVED ON?
MSM: ‘REWIND, FREEZE FRAME’
DISMISSAL OF TITLE SUIT CONCLUSIVE
PSEUDO-EXPERTS FAILED PSEUDO-SECULARS!
ISN’T IT TIME TO MOVE ON?

KASHMIRI PANDITS - A FORSAKEN MINORITY

NAC’S COMMUNAL VIOLENCE BILL

RETELL THE WOLF AND THE GOAT STORY!
THE WOLF AND THE GOAT
TARGETING HINDUS
TWIST IN THE TALE

SECTION VI − MISCELLANY

DEMOCRACY, FREE SPEECH & SECESSION

INDO-PAK RELATIONS - LESSONS FROM HISTORY

SCRAP ARTICLE 370. SAY ‘NO’ TO PAK SIACHEN PROPOSAL

‘WAR SPEECH’ COST GANDHI HIS ‘NOBEL’?

HOW TO TACKLE BLACK MONEY MENACE

WILL ‘INDIANS AGAINST CORRUPTION’ WIN?

ANNA HAZARE AND INDIANS AGAINST CORRUPTION
DRAMA AT JANTAR MANTAR
CYNICS & INTELLIGENTSIA VERSUS. CIVIL SOCIETY

‘AAM ADMI PARTY’ AND THE BATTLE OF PERCEPTION

P. V. NARASIMHA RAO AND THE ELUSIVE ‘BHARAT RATNA’!

IS ASTROLOGY SCIENCE OR SUPERSTITION?

IS THE UN A WHITE-MAN’S CLUB?

A PARTY OF VICTORS?
INDIA’S CLAIM FOR UNSC MEMBERSHIP
INDIAN NAÏVETÉ

UPA’S NAC RULE - DICTATORSHIP IN DISGUISE?

WILL WE RETURN TO ‘HINDU RATE OF GROWTH’?

‘NEHRUVIAN RATE OF GROWTH’
IMPLOSION OF A SOCIALIST SOCIETY
FAILED PROPHET OF SOCIALISM
‘HINDU RATE OF GROWTH’

FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN RETAIL - BANE OR BOON?

THE CHINESE EXAMPLE
AN INDIAN EXAMPLE

INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL DEMYSTIFIED

INTRODUCTION
NUCLEAR MINERAL RESOURCES & TECHNOLOGY
NUCLEAR RESOURCES AND ENERGY PRODUCTION
THE 123-AGREEMENT VIS-À-VIS US REGULATIONS
THE COURSE OF THE NUCLEAR DEAL
THE OPPOSITION
CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

END ACADEMIC APARTHEID

Saturday, November 19, 2016

ABOLITION OF PRIVY PURSES BETRAYAL OF CONSTITUTION?

Admirers of Indira Gandhi have often described the abolition of ‘Privy Purses’ as one of her principal achievements, along with the nationalisation of banks and the victory in the 1971 war. The first two were populist measures intended to derive electoral advantage in an era in which socialism was seen as a panacea for all social and economic ills. The third, viz. the Bangladesh war was in a way thrust upon India. To give Indira Gandhi her due she had the political will to stand up to Pakistan overtly supported by the USA. While China offered covert support to Pakistan there was the lurking fear that she might open up a second front in the war.

PRIVY PURSES

The rulers of the erstwhile princely States which were amalgamated in the ‘Union of States’ as the Constitution described the newly emergent nation were to sign two documents known as the ‘Instrument of Accession’(IoA)[1] and the ‘Standstill Agreement’ (SA)[2]. Under the IoA the princes were to surrender only Communications, Defence, External Affairs and some ancillary matters to the Indian Union.

As late as February 1947, Nehru had assured the Negotiating Committee of the Chamber of Princes that neither the monarchical form of government, nor the integrity of the States, would be touched. […] The grant of Privy Purses to the rulers was a sort of quid pro quo for the surrender by them of all their ruling powers and for the dissolution of their States.[3]


The privy purses were thus an important component of Sardar Patel’s negotiated settlement with the 562 princely States which were amalgamated in the Indian union. The settlement was incorporated in the Indian Constitution under Articles 291 and 362.

When they agreed to amalgamate their States in the Indian union, the rulers of the princely States had surrendered the towns and villages that comprised the States, thousands of acres of jagir land, palaces and other buildings, museums with their invaluable treasures, armouries and aircraft (which the larger states had) and other properties. The cash balances and investments of the States which were taken over alone amounted to 77 crore. This figure however excludes the cash balances of two large states, Hyderabad and Mysore as they were continuing States at the time. The interest accruals on these amounts alone would more than cover the payment of Privy Purses. In addition to all these assets, the rulers also surrendered a railway system of roughly 12,000 miles (which, to put in perspective was about one sixth of the length of the present track network) and rolling stock, without receiving any compensation.

The Indian government agreed to compensate rulers at a rate of not more than 8.5% of their annual revenues with a ceiling of ₹ 10 lakh. In subsequent negotiations the ceiling was waived off in eleven cases. Of the 562 princely States 398 were eligible to receive less than 50,000 per annum. The largest State, Hyderabad received 43 lakh (which in 1947-48 was just 2% of the State’s revenues), whereas the smallest State, Katodia received just 192 per year. The objective of the Privy Purses was to

enable the rulers and their successors to adjust themselves to the new order of things and to fit themselves into the modern social and economic pattern (Ibid.)

The Privy Purses were in effect a kind of pension that the Constitution of a sovereign nation guaranteed to pay to the erstwhile rulers, and as Menon put it

The Privy Purse is intended to cover all the expenses of the ruler and his family, including the expenses on account of his personal staff, his palaces and the marriages and other ceremonies in his household. (Ibid.)

The Privy Purses were to be gradually reduced. At the time of independence, the annual outlay for the purses was 6 crore. By the time they were abolished by Indira Gandhi in 1971, the figure came down to 4 crore. To put this figure in perspective, it amounted to 0.1% of the estimated annual revenue receipts of the Union of ₹ 3867 crore for the year 1970-71.[4]

The Privy Purses were to be paid by the Indian states into which the princely Sates were absorbed. The rulers were initially apprehensive that they would be at the mercy of the whims and fancies of the popular ministries of the states into which their States were absorbed. The apprehension turned out to be not entirely groundless as in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, as soon as the State acceded to the Indian Union, Sheik Abdullah expelled its ruler from the state. He refused to honour the agreement to pay the negotiated Privy Purse to the Maharajah. The Government of India was forced to pay the Privy Purse and continued to do so till its abrogation by Indira Gandhi.

POLITICAL VENDETTA?

As in all other matters, the Indian left-illiberal have one take on Jammu and Kashmir and quite a different one for the rest of India. The Privy Purses have been the subject of intense debate for long. For instance they argued for the perpetuation of the purely temporary Article 370; while on the other hand they contended that the Privy Purses were not compatible with an ‘egalitarian social order’.

What could have cooked their goose, perhaps, was that some rulers joined C. Rajagopalachari’s Swatantra Party and in the 1967 general elections defeated many Congress candidates. Indira Gandhi was incensed by this and wanted to teach them a lesson by abolishing the Privy Purses. In 1969 her government introduced the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill. It was passed by the Lok Sabha with a majority of 332:154 votes but was defeated in the Rajya Sabha by 149:75 votes. Not one to bow to silly inconveniences like parliamentary procedures, she had a pliable President, V. V. Giri issue an order derecognizing the rulers. The September 6, 1970 order was challenged in the Supreme Court by N. A. Palkhivala (and others) in the famous Privy Purses Case and was struck down by the Supreme Court on December 15, 1970.[5]

After Indira Gandhi returned to power with a landslide majority in 1971, her government passed the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Bill to abolish the Privy Purses.

Here was what Sardar Patel said commending the adoption of Article 291 in the Constituent Assembly

The Privy Purse settlements are therefore in the nature of consideration for the surrender by the rulers of all their ruling powers and also for the dissolution of the States as separate units. We would do well to remember that the British Government spent enormous amounts in respect of the Mahratta settlements alone. We are ourselves honouring the commitments of the British Government in respect of the pensions of those rulers who helped them to consolidate their empire. Need we cavil then at the small — I purposely use the word small — price we have paid for the bloodless revolution which has affected the destinies of millions of our people?

The capacity for mischief and trouble on the part of the rulers if the settlement with them would not have been reached on a negotiated basis was far greater than could be imagined at this stage.

Let us do justice to them; let us place ourselves in their position and then assess the value of their sacrifice. The rulers have now discharged their part of the obligations by transferring all ruling powers and by agreeing to the integration of their States. The main part of our obligation under these agreements is to ensure that the guarantees given by us in respect of Privy Purses are fully implemented. Our failure to do so would be a breach of faith and seriously prejudice the stabilization of the new order.[6]

In the light of what Patel said, the abolition of the Privy Purses can only be seen as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of our nation because it was betrayal of a solemn Constitutional guarantee.

It may be appropriate to quote here what Arvind P. Datar had to say of the betrayal of the Congress party:

Sardar Patel persuaded the Constituent Assembly to guarantee payment of Privy Purses and preserve the rights of the erstwhile rulers. But the Congress betrayed him 20 years later by abolishing the Privy Purses.[7]



[1] It is an agreement signed by the ruler of the princely State and the dominion of India subjecting the princely State to the Government of India Act 1935. The Instrument of Accession binds the State to the jurisdiction of the Union government for making laws in the areas of Defence, External Affairs, Communications and some ancillary matters.

[2] It is an agreement that assures continuance of any ‘existing agreements and administrative arrangements in the matters of common concern’ existing between the Indian State and the British government. It specifies eighteen administrative areas in the Schedule attached to the agreement. It also signifies the end of Paramountcy of the British government. 

[3] Menon, V.P. (1955). Chapter XXV, “The Cost of Integration”: The Story Of The Integration Of The Indian States. Longmans Green & Co. London. pp. 324-328.

[4] Annual budget speech for 1970-71 delivered by Indira Gandhi in the Lok Sabha on February 28, 1970. Accessible from http://indiabudget.nic.in/bspeech/bs197071.pdf

[5] H. H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao ... vs Union Of India on 15 December, 1970. Accessible from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/660275/

[6] Menon, V.P. (1955). Chapter XXVI, “Retrospect and Prospect”: The Story Of The Integration Of The Indian States. Longmans Green & Co. London. pp. 329-335.

[7] “Who Betrayed Sardar Patel” The Hindu. November, 19, 2013. Accessible from http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/who-betrayed-sardar-patel/article5366083.ece