.... Gandhi wanted every Indian to have drinking water. Nehru wanted the atom bomb. He got the atom bomb but Indians did not get clean drinking water. So a frightening strategic mistake was made right at the beginning ... Nehru and his entourage wanted India to be a great power .
... Pakistan and terrorism have become a convenient excuse to pursue a policy of heightened militarism. And India has placed itself in this situation, in this spiral of violence. In reality it has become almost impossible to negotiate with Pakistan. India has never attempted to negotiate with Pakistan. The mistake was made right from the early days of independence. Nehru's first error was to accept the partition of the country. His second mistake was to believe that problems could be resolved through violence, such as the takeover of Hyderabad. Thousands died in that operation. The same thing was repeated in Goa and the northeast. It is understandable. Nehru wanted to be seen as virile ... India has created this spiral of violence and has now become its own prisoner.
When Gandhi says one must treat today's enemy as tomorrow's friend, he is right. It's like the relation between France and Germany. Either one learns to co-exist or one is condemned to collective suicide. So its better to have a strategy where one is thinking of conciliation rather than aggression. Gandhi's thoughts on the subject were much more practical, more pragmatic than. Nehru's. Successive Indian Governments have refused to accept that non-violence works because of psychological reasons: for over a century the British tried to paint the Indians as docile, passive people. And Indians have since tried to tell they world that they are not a feeble people.
Part of the genius of India is a blurred identity. Because it is also an identity made up of many minorities -.no one in India is in a majority ... Time this concept is now being questioned. I think the Hindutva phenomenon can be explained by the deracination, the uprooting and alienation of the middle classes. At the same time, Hindutva is important but limited and not strong enough to transform India in a radical way. We can see this in the functioning of the present Government - the BJP does not dare to apply its programme ...
... Only time will tell whether (Babari Masjid episode) was really a turning point or if it was merely anecdotal. The two interpretations are possible and admissible ... On the level of the quotidian, it's tolerance which dominates. I think India demonstrates phenomenal tolerance ... Also in India violence is more urban, related to the modern way of life .rather than traditional. It has to do with the stress of survival, linked to slums, social envy. It's the violence of the have-nots against the haves. Traditional India is more non-violent.
... The idea of Hindutva (may) damage diversity, this multi- faceted identity of India? ... The paradox in this situation is that Hindutva is almost contrary to the history of India. If one accepts that the history of India is made up of different strata of experience which amalgamate to give 'us this multicultural, tolerant India, Hindutva appears to be a recent aberration. Like a copy of a European movement with a single, virile God, a single, unified nation. It's like one of these European ideologies, fashionable in the Thirties, which propagated sport, virility ...
Those who invented Hindutva were very westernised. So Hindutva is- westernised and goes contrary to the genius of India. It works because it appeals to the great Indian middle' class which has been made rootless by urbanisation. Given the scale of the country I do not think it is really a threat ... Hindutva is not Indian. It is an imported political product.
