GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 9th April. It is thought that historical political blunders made by Bharat are to blame for present issues. There are numerous historical examples that demonstrate unequivocally that Bharat’s first ruling government, Congress, has consistently supported the “Bharat Todo” policy. The history of our nation reveals that, prior to independence, Bharat was divided to establish Pakistan. Also, China’s possession of some Bharatiya areas and Pakistan’s occupation of Kashmir (POK). What caused all of this? Who is responsible for all these divisions? Congress is the only entity that deserves credit.
The first Prime Minister of Bharat, Pt. Nehru once declared, “China first, Bharat second.
Recently, this issue was raised again when External Affairs Minister (MEA) S Jaishankar, criticizing Congress for its foreign policy, asserted that Jawaharlal Nehru, the nation’s first Prime Minister, intended to ensure China’s inclusion in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) before Bharat’s.
According to EAM, Jawaharlal Nehru received a warning from Sardar Patel about China. Sardar Patel stated that we are currently dealing with a situation that has never occurred in Bharat’s history on two fronts: China and Pakistan. In addition, he stated that he believes the Chinese have bad intentions and that we should take preventative measures and create policies around this. In Dr. Jaishankar’s words, Nehru “was completely dissenting.”
STORY | There was a time when Nehru said 'India second, China first': Jaishankar
READ: https://t.co/icqSoyqM99 pic.twitter.com/H5U1qq3jY7
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) April 2, 2024
Dr. Jaishankar stated, “Nehru told Patel that he was unduly skeptical about the Chinese.” The first Bharatiya Prime Minister believed that no one could attack Bharat from beyond the Himalayas.
A few years later, there was a discussion over the UN: should Bharat have been granted a seat at that particular time? Nehru therefore held the following attitude at the time: “We deserve a seat, but we must first ensure China gets a seat.”
The Minister made a contrast note of the fact that “we are talking about Bharat first today.” Once upon a time, the Bharatiya Prime Minister spoke about China first.
He restated Sardar Patel’s stance that the Kashmir dispute should not be brought before the UN. “The Minister continued, “Many issues inherited from the past” have been the Center’s focus for the past ten years. Dr. Jaishankar also asserted that the island of Katchatheevu was given to Sri Lanka in 1974 by the Congress government under Indira Gandhi and that this was kept “hidden.”
Jawaharlal Nehru, the country’s first prime minister, was also quoted regarding the island problem. “I attach no importance at all to this little island, and I would have no hesitation in giving up our claims to it,” Nehru wrote in 1961.
The agreement to demarcate the border between Sri Lanka and Bharat in the waters between Adam’s Bridge and the Palk Strait was signed in June 1974 by the then-prime ministers of both countries, Indira Gandhi and Sirima R D Bandaranaike. In June 28, 1974, a joint statement was released, which reportedly stated that the line had been set “in accordance with historical evidence, international legal principles, and precedents.”
“This boundary lies one mile off the west coast of the uninhabited” Katchatheevu, the statement added. The negotiations that had been going on between the governments of Madras and Ceylon since October 1921 came to an end with this agreement.
The DMK claimed that the Congress government had not taken into account its viewpoints prior to signing the deal with Sri Lanka in 1974, when it was in power in Tamil Nadu. In response, the party had planned multiple protests.
The Tamil Nadu government, led by J Jayalalithaa, continually voiced concerns about the matter and even took legal action. In a letter to PM Modi, M K Stalin, the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, urged conversation on the subject. He later corresponded with PM Modi once again following the authorities in Sri Lanka’s detention of many fishermen.
Stalin emphasized the impact on the livelihood of Tamil fishermen in a letter dated February of this year. He cited the threat to the social cohesion and economic stability of the fishing-dependent communities posed by the increasingly restricted access to traditional fishing seas.
Effective foreign policy is critical for any nation. It can be very important in exporting home industries to other nations, obtaining vital technology, and establishing corporate logistics and connections. But can we really call this an effective foreign policy?
What therefore does each of these examples suggest? Congressmen appear to be bred in the divide and conquer philosophy. They wish to split up the nation, donate parts of it to other nations, and profit from the accords.
Comments are closed.