Olivia
Online
Naveen Coomar (मोदी का परिवार)
@ncoomar
"You either run from it or learn from it" - Lion King.
Delhi
Joined October 2009
123 Following
183 Followers
14.3K Posts
The Egyptian Football Association posted a video titled: “The Secret to Victory.”
They openly state that the key to victory is to begin the match by cursing Christians and Jews.
Before each match, the team gathers to recite Quranic passages calling Christians and Jews infidels under Allah’s wrath.
Coptic Christians make up 15% of Egypt’s population, but they are not allowed to be part of the national team.
For some reason, FIFA thinks this is ok.
Back in 2018, Jalandhar Cantt Railway Station was marked by overcrowded trains and long waiting times.
Today, in 2026, the same tracks are served by modern Vande Bharat trains.
𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝-𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚’𝐬 𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐌 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐢’𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩. 🇮🇳🚄
@ZEE5India Submitted my request details again on the link
@ZEE5India - terrible customer care service. My refund for subscription that was supposed to be credited back in 5-7 working days has not been refunded in last 15 days. Now even the Bot does not respond
For years, TMC leaders acted as if Bengal and its people belonged to them. Under BJP, that arrogance is finally being held accountable.
𝐀𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐟𝐞́ 𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝟐𝟒 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐬, 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐈𝐦𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐌𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚, 𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐌𝐂 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐚𝐨𝐤𝐚𝐭 𝐌𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚, 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝. 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞, 𝐓𝐌𝐂'𝐬 𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐣 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐰.
An Open Letter to the 61 Indians Who Signed the Appeal
I have a few simple questions for the 61 people asking India to normalize ties with Pakistan.
How many of you have lost a family member to Pakistan-backed terrorism?
How many of you have a son or daughter serving on the border, ready to sacrifice their life for this country?
Please think about these questions before asking India to "move on."
We must not forget that the mastermind of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, Hafiz Saeed, is still in Pakistan. Justice is not complete just because terrorist Ajmal Kasab was hanged.
We must not forget what happened when PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee went to Pakistan with a message of peace. India was betrayed with the Kargil War.
We must not forget what happened when PM Modi visited Pakistan and met Nawaz Sharif. India was betrayed with the Pathankot terror attack.
And how can we forget the recent Pahalgam terror attack? The pain is still fresh. Families are still living with that loss. Yet some people are already asking India to normalize ties.
And, who decides that these 61 people are "prominent Indians"? Does the opinion of a common citizen matter less?
Peace is always desirable. But peace cannot be built by ignoring history, overlooking terrorism, or expecting trust without accountability.
Sonia Gandhi’s conscience appears to possess a very selective passport.
It travels instantly to Gaza, discovers “moral failure”, condemns India’s diplomacy and pronounces PM Narendra Modi’s Israel visit a “bewildering strategic decision”.
But it somehow never crosses the border into Bangladesh.
Where was this moral thunder when, in Bangladesh, Hindu homes and temples were attacked, women terrorised, religious leaders targeted and minority communities forced to live in fear?
Where was the op-ed? Where was the denunciation?
Sonia apparently prefers performative morality.
Her objection is not that India lacks an independent foreign policy. Her objection is that India’s foreign policy is no longer written in the Congress office, filtered through old ideological reflexes and subordinated to domestic vote-bank calculations.
After spending 9 years in prison, colonel Purohit said:
“My nation is my family.”
After serving 10 years as Vice President, Hamid Ansari said:
“This country is no longer fit to live in.”
That, it is claimed, is the difference between a patriot and a t@@@.
Today, we bow in reverence to the courageous souls who stood fiercely in defense of our Democracy during the 'Emergency'; a truly grim period in India's history.
That era marked a severe blow to our Constitutional framework. We saw Fundamental Rights stripped away, the Voices of the Press silenced and the unjust imprisonment of Political Figures, Social Activists and Journalists. The very Pillars of our Democratic system were systematically undermined.
Yet, in the face of this oppression, the resilience of the Indian spirit shone brightly. We remember the remarkable bravery of everyday Citizens who refused to bow down, choosing instead to protect the sacred principles of our Democracy.
To this day, the Constitution remains the living pulse of 140 crore Indians, securing our Rights and guiding our duties.
Let us renew our solemn vow to protect these Democratic ideals. Drawing strength from our foundational document, let us continue striving for an India firmly rooted in Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
#SamvidhanHatyaDiwas
Winning against the Chinese. In China.
At the Asian Relay Championships.
Srabani, Sudeshna, Sneha & Tamanna in the 4x100 relay.
Power. Speed. Grace. Commitment.
But above all, teamwork.
This clip has it all.
I’m watching it on loop.
More of this please. 🇮🇳
Sorry No. 7 for Rahul Gandhi: He filed an application in the MP HC and apologized to @ChouhanShivraj 's son for dragging his name into the Panama Papers case.
Kartikeya Singh has filed a defamation case against him.
This same man & his slaves use "Maafi Veer" slurs for Savarkar. 😹
How Britain Engineered History’s Greatest Financial Heist
By @shreehistory
I. The Stroke of Midnight
At the stroke of midnight on August 14, 1947, as the world watched the Union Jack descend over New Delhi and the saffron, white, and green of a new nation unfurl, history recorded a triumph of self-determination. The British Empire, exhausted by war and weakened by the inexorable tide of nationalism, was relinquishing its crown jewel. The romanticized narrative of the 20th century tells us that Britain granted India its freedom, an act of political magnanimity marking the end of colonial dominion.
But beneath the pageantry of lowering flags, the soaring rhetoric of Jawaharlal Nehru’s "Tryst with Destiny," and the chaotic tragedy of Partition, a very different kind of transfer was taking place. It was not a transfer of political power, but of financial liability.
In the quiet, wood-paneled chambers of the British Treasury and the Reserve Bank of India, a ledger was being closed. To the accountants and chancellors in London, Indian independence was less a geopolitical retreat and more a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, a meticulously orchestrated maneuver by which Britain effectively declared independence from its own creditor.
The colonizer owed the colonized a staggering fortune. And the colonizer was broke.
II. The First Extraction and the Silencing
To understand the audacity of the financial maneuvering of 1947, one must look back to the blueprint drafted three decades earlier, during the First World War. The great financial heist of the mid-century was not an anomaly; it was the perfection of a formula born in the trenches of Europe, paid for in the fields of Bengal.
When the First World War erupted in 1914, Britain found itself in desperate need of men, material, and money. It turned to its empire. India was coerced into contributing hundreds of millions of pounds to the British war effort, alongside the lives of over a million Indian soldiers. To finance this, the British Raj effectively commandeered India’s export earnings and heavily increased taxation, flooding the domestic economy with paper currency while draining its physical gold reserves. Britain abandoned the gold standard, but India was forced to maintain it, absorbing the inflationary shock.
By the war's end, the economic strain on the Indian populace was immense. Prices of essential goods had skyrocketed, and the returns on the capital extracted for the war were nowhere to be seen. As the Indian public began to realize the scale of this economic theft, dissent began to boil. Nationalist leaders pointed to the economic drain, exposing the arithmetic of imperial exploitation.
London’s response was not to remedy the extraction, but to legislate silence. In 1919, the British government passed the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, widely known as the Rowlatt Act. The Act allowed for the incarceration of suspects without trial and curbed the free press, specifically targeting the dissemination of seditious materials, which in practice meant anyone explaining how the British were bankrupting the country. When protests erupted against this silencing, the British military responded with the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in Amritsar, killing hundreds of unarmed civilians.
The message was unequivocal: the colony would pay, and it would suffer in silence. The economic truth was to be suppressed by force. It was a precedent that would prove vital 28 years later, when the sums involved would be exponentially larger.
III. The Blank Check of World War II
By the time the Second World War began, the British Empire was already financially strained. The defense of the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and the British Isles required capital that London simply did not possess. Once again, the British turned to the vast, seemingly bottomless reservoir of the Indian economy.
To fund the massive mobilization of troops, the provisioning of armies, and the purchase of raw materials, the British Raj essentially wrote itself a blank check against the Indian taxpayer. India was declared a "non-self-governing territory" contributing to the war effort, but instead of paying India in hard currency for the goods and labor extracted, Britain credited the Reserve Bank of India with pounds sterling. These were not transferable funds; they were essentially IOUs, piling up in London as "Sterling Balances."
The human cost of this capital extraction was catastrophic. The most visceral manifestation of this economic drain was the Bengal Famine of 1943. While the British Treasury accumulated sterling balances, the diversion of grain and the financial extraction policies led to the starvation of an estimated two to three million people in Bengal. The Indian taxpayer was literally funding the survival of the British Empire with their lives and their livelihoods.
By 1945, the sheer scale of this extraction was breathtaking. Britain owed India roughly £1.3 billion. To comprehend the magnitude of this sum, one must view it not through the lens of modern consumer inflation, but as a share of the economy. In 1947, £1.3 billion represented roughly 13.5 percent of Britain’s entire Gross Domestic Product. If the British Treasury were forced to write a check for that proportion of its economy today, it would need to find approximately £350 billion.
It was a sum so massive that paying it in full would have instantly bankrupted post-war Britain, a nation that was, at that very moment, surviving on American Marshall Plan aid and rationed bread. The colonizer owed the colonized. And the colonizer had no intention of paying in full.
IV. The Safety Valve and the Negotiation
Facing the prospect of domestic economic collapse, the British government executed an audacious maneuver. The transfer of power in 1947 was not merely a political act; it was a financial release valve.
There is a historical curiosity, often unspoken in popular narratives, that complicates the story of India’s independence. The Indian National Congress (INC), the primary vehicle of Indian nationalism and independence, was not born from a grassroots peasant uprising, but was initially floated by a British colonial official, Allan Octavian Hume, in 1885. Historians have long debated the "safety valve" theory: the idea that Hume and the Viceroy engineered the creation of the INC to provide a controlled, institutional outlet for the rising frustrations of the Western-educated Indian elite, preventing a violent, uncontrollable rebellion.
While the INC evolved into a formidable force for independence under Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru, the institutional DNA of the organization was steeped in British legal and political frameworks. When it came time to negotiate the financial settlement of 1947, the lingering effects of this "safety valve" dynamic became apparent.
The negotiations over the Sterling Balances were brutal, conducted behind closed doors by the British Labour government’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, and the Indian delegation led by Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Britain argued that a sudden withdrawal of £1.3 billion would crash the pound sterling, bankrupt the Sterling Area, and trigger a global financial crisis. The threat was explicit: if India demanded its money, the ensuing chaos would ensure India received nothing.
India was in a state of profound vulnerability. The subcontinent was engulfed in the horrific trauma of Partition; millions of refugees were on the move, and the new government was struggling to establish basic administrative continuity. In this moment of existential crisis, the Indian leadership accepted terms that effectively castrated its own wealth.
The 1947 agreement dictated that the vast majority of the £1.3 billion would be "blocked." Only a fraction was immediately released; the remaining £1.15 billion was locked in London, to be doled out in agonizingly slow installments over a decade or more. Worse, the agreement stipulated that these blocked balances would earn little to no interest. By accepting this compromise, the post-colonial government effectively agreed to a structural haircut on the asset, surrendering the real-time economic utility of the money to save the British economy from default.
The safety valve had, once again, operated exactly as designed.
V. The Alchemy of Devaluation
With India's massive claim successfully trapped in the vaults of the Bank of England, Britain weaponized the only tool it had left: the currency itself.
Having forced India to accept deferred payments, Britain engineered a stealth default through the alchemy of foreign exchange. On September 18, 1949, just over two years after Indian independence, the British government unilaterally announced a massive devaluation of the pound sterling. The pound’s value against the US dollar was slashed overnight from $4.03 to $2.80, a devaluation of 30.5 percent.
Because India’s sterling balances were, by the very terms of the 1947 agreement, denominated in pounds, this overnight maneuver was an economic earthquake. It instantly vaporized almost one-third of the purchasing power of the money owed to India. If India wanted to use those sterling balances to buy American machinery, Canadian wheat, or Swiss capital goods, they would find that nearly a third of their money had vanished into the ether.
Britain, on the other hand, enjoyed a sudden, massive windfall. The real value of the debt owed to India was slashed by a third with the stroke of a pen. India was bound by the Sterling Area agreement and had to devalue the rupee proportionately, tying its currency to the declining fortunes of the British pound and further devastating its import capacity. It was a financial ambush, executed with the cold precision of an actuary.
VI. The Central Bank’s Quiet Payout
As if this financial evisceration was not sufficient, the final insult was administered at the very heart of India’s financial system.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the nation's central bank, had been established in 1935 under British colonial rule as a privately owned entity. Its shareholders were a mix of private banks, financiers, and investors, a group that included substantial British and colonial-era capital.
Just after independence, the Indian government recognized the strategic necessity of nationalizing the central bank. The RBI (Transfer to Public Ownership) Act was passed in 1948, and the bank was officially nationalized on January 1, 1949.
The terms of this nationalization reveal a profound asymmetry in the post-colonial transition. When the Indian government took ownership of the RBI, it did not simply seize the assets. It compensated the private shareholders handsomely. Under Section 4 of the 1948 Act, the compensation was calculated not at a discounted state rate but based on the average market price of the shares on the Bombay Stock Exchange during the months preceding the Act. Because RBI shares, with a face value of one hundred rupees, were trading at a premium of roughly fifty percent on the open market, the total payout from the Indian exchequer to the 500,000 private shares was approximately 7.5 crores.
But the generosity of the settlement did not end with a cash buyout. Under Section 4(2) of the Act, the shareholders were given the option to take their compensation in Government of India promissory notes bearing a guaranteed interest rate of three percent per annum. This was a staggering mechanism of financial alchemy. The British and colonial-era investors were effectively allowed to convert their equity in India's central bank into risk-free sovereign debt backed by the newly independent Indian taxpayer. They could hold these 3 percent government papers and collect a perpetual stream of interest, ensuring that the extraction of wealth from the subcontinent continued long after the political transfer of power.
The juxtaposition is staggering, bordering on the absurd. Private shareholders of India’s central bank were paid out in full, at peak market valuations, and handed guaranteed interest-bearing bonds. Meanwhile, the Indian public, who had already paid for Britain’s survival in two world wars through forced extraction and inflation, was left holding devalued, blocked IOUs that had just lost a third of their value in the currency markets.
The private investors were made whole. The Indian public was made paupers.
VII. The Durgapur Paradigm: The Empire Strikes Back
The long shadow of this financial subjugation played out in the subsequent decades, dictating the trajectory of the newly independent nation’s development.
By the late 1950s, India had launched its Second Five-Year Plan, an ambitious push to industrialize. But the country was facing a severe balance-of-payments crisis. The sterling balances had been largely drawn down to pay for essential imports, and the country was running out of foreign exchange. India needed to build three major steel plants to fuel its industrialization. The Soviet Union stepped in to fund the Bhilai Steel Plant; West Germany funded the Rourkela plant. Britain, eager to maintain its commercial foothold, wanted the contract for the Durgapur Steel Plant.
Rather than releasing any lingering goodwill or acknowledging the massive debt still technically being dribbled out, Britain offered a new arrangement. In 1958, the UK government extended a fresh £100 million loan, a "new" line of sterling credit, to India.
This was not a repayment of the wartime debt; it was fresh financing. The British government essentially told India: We will lend you this new money, but you must use it to buy British goods. The money flowed straight back into the pockets of a British consortium of steelmakers, subsidizing the post-war British heavy engineering industry.
The Indian taxpayer, who had already funded the British war machine, was now taking on new debt to buy British machinery, because the money they were originally owed had been blocked, devalued, and structurally dismantled. The cycle of financial dependency had been perfectly preserved.
VIII. Amnesia and the True Cost of the Union Jack
Today, the historical amnesia surrounding these events is profound. The narrative of 1947 is frozen in the amber of political triumph: the lowering of the flag, the end of empire, the dawn of a new era. Mainstream histories focus on the geopolitical maneuvering, the tragedy of Partition, and the drafting of a constitution. The great financial heist remains obscured in the shadows of central bank archives and Treasury minutes.
The Indian population has been kept largely in the dark about the arithmetic of their own subjugation. The textbooks speak of the political transfer of power, but rarely of the transfer of financial liability. The £350 billion equivalent that was extracted, blocked, devalued, and systematically stripped of its value is a phantom limb in the national memory.
When the viceroys departed, Britain did not just walk away from the subcontinent; it walked away from an invoice it could not afford to pay. It declared independence from its own empire. Through a masterclass in financial engineering, leveraging the Rowlatt-era instinct for suppression, the "safety valve" of institutional compromise by a party supposedly fought for freedom and did deals behind the doors, the blunt instrument of currency devaluation, and the quiet payouts of risk-free bonds to colonial shareholders, Britain managed to offload the cost of its own survival onto the very people it had colonized.
Independence was not a gift. It was a getaway car. And the true price of the Union Jack's descent was paid not by the British taxpayer, but by the millions of Indians whose sweat and starvation funded an empire, only to be handed a worthless IOU in return.
References and Further Reading
Bhattacharya, S. (1997). The Colonial State and the Monetary System in India. Oxford University Press.
Bhowani, B. R. (1965). India's Sterling Balances. International Monetary Fund (IMF) Staff Papers, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-42.
Chandavarkar, A. (1989). The Imperial Bank of India and the Reserve Bank of India: A Study in Central Banking Transition. Oxford University Press.
Datta, B. (1949). The Devaluation of the Rupee. The Indian Economic Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Hume, A. O. (1885). The Indian National Congress: A Retrospect.
Keynes, J. M. (1946). The Balance of Payments of the United Kingdom.
Mukerjee, M. (2010). Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II. Basic Books.
Reserve Bank of India. (1948). The Reserve Bank of India (Transfer to Public Ownership) Act, 1948. RBI Historical Archives.
Sarkar, S. (1989). Modern India: 1885-1947. Macmillan.
Tomlinson, B. R. (1979). The Political Economy of the Raj 1914–1947: The Economics of Decolonization in India. Macmillan.
(All rights reserved. You must get written permission if you want to republish)
Twitter users can share, repost, like, comment but please provide attribution to @shreehistory who did all this research.
The Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru contain a fascinating episode that sheds light on Nehru’s priorities in the years immediately after Independence.
On 12 December 1948, Nehru wrote to Finance Minister John Matthai regarding the enormous income-tax assessments issued against Butcher Suhrawardy, the former Premier of Bengal. Suhrawardy had complained to Nehru that he was being assessed for nearly ₹50 lakh in taxes for 1945-46 and 1946-47 and alleged that the Income Tax Department was harassing him.
Rather than leaving the matter entirely to the tax authorities, Nehru intervened. He forwarded Suhrawardy’s grievances to Matthai and cautioned that any “high-handed” action could have serious political repercussions. On the very same day, Nehru also wrote to West Bengal Chief Minister Dr. B.C. Roy, describing the assessment as “extraordinary” and seeking further information.
This was not an ordinary taxpayer. Suhrawardy remains one of the most controversial figures of the pre-Independence era, remembered for his role as Premier of Bengal during Direct Action Day in Calcutta in 1946, which unleashed horrific communal violence.
Yet Nehru’s concern was not merely the tax assessment itself, but the broader political consequences that could follow from the government’s treatment of such a prominent Muslim leader.
What happened next is equally noteworthy. Suhrawardy eventually left India, disposed of his interests here, moved to Pakistan, and went on to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
The episode raises an important historical question: Why was India’s Prime Minister personally intervening in a tax dispute involving a politician who would later lead a country that had been created through Partition?
The correspondence survives in the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru and offers a revealing glimpse into how political considerations often intersected with governance in the Nehru era.
Letter to Finance Minister John Matthai: https://t.co/0wJYGAzOrm
Letter to West Bengal Chief Minister Dr. B.C. Roy: https://t.co/xDMehoLfaW
While we often praise Indira Gandhi for the 1971 war, we should certainly read the statement made in the Pakistani parliament by Asif Ali Zardari—the husband of Benazir Bhutto.
This was a time when over 90,000 Pakistani soldiers were in Indian custody, and the Pakistan Army had surrendered. The Indian Army had integrated the Tharparkar district of Sindh into India—declaring it a new district of Gujarat—and the Tricolour had been hoisted over the parliament building in Muzaffarabad.
When Zulfikar Ali Bhutto arrived to sign the Simla Agreement with Indira Gandhi, he brought his daughter, Benazir Bhutto, along with him.
Indira Gandhi placed a condition before Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: if he wanted his 93,000 soldiers back, he would have to hand over Kashmir to India. Bhutto refused, telling her that he would not give up Kashmir, nor would he sign any such agreement; he told her to keep the 93,000 soldiers herself.
Indira Gandhi had never imagined that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was an even shrewder player than she was. He knew how to turn a military defeat at the border into a victory at the negotiating table.
Indira Gandhi found herself in a very tight spot.
Both Pupul Jayakar and Kuldip Nayar have written in their books that Indira Gandhi missed a crucial opportunity; neither she nor her advisors possessed the diplomatic acumen required to handle such a situation.
Under the Geneva Convention, if a country captures prisoners of war, it is obligated to fully uphold their dignity. That evening at the hotel, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto said to his daughter, Benazir Bhutto, "India's back has been broken in this war; we fought with great valor. We have dealt a severe blow to India's economy. India was already burdened by Bangladeshi refugees; how will it now sustain 93,000 Pakistani soldiers? And if India wants to settle these 93,000 Pakistani soldiers there, let it do so—what use would we have for such cowardly soldiers anyway? I have reduced Indira Gandhi to a pathetic state."
And in the end, Indira Gandhi was reduced to a meek, cowering figure.
Indira Gandhi handed over Kashmir to Pakistan, returned the 93,000 soldiers, and abandoned 56 of her own soldiers to die in Pakistani prisons. Furthermore, eight months later—driven by a desire for the Nobel Prize—she returned the Tharparkar district (which had been incorporated into the Indian state of Gujarat) to Pakistan, even though 98% of Tharparkar's population at the time was Hindu.
In the book he wrote after retiring, the Army Chief at the time of the Shimla Agreement stated, "We won this war on the battlefield, but politicians defeated India at the negotiating table—and that politician was Indira Gandhi."
This is the truth about the so-called 'Iron Lady'...
BIG BREAKING NEWS 🚨 Kolkata's Suhrawardy Avenue has been renamed now after Gopal Patha by BJP Govt.
UNPRECEDENTED AND HISTORIC DECISION !!
Suhrawady was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Hindus in Calcutta.
Whereas Gopal Patha saved lakhs of Bengali Hindus on Direct Action Day called by Jinnah.
Major Historical wrong has finally been rectified !!
I commend the historic decision taken by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, yesterday, on the solemn occasion of Paschimbanga Divas, which would be instrumental in rectifying a historical wrong.
Suhrawardy Avenue will now be renamed as Gopal Mukherjee Road.
For decades, a major artery of our City bore the name of someone who wilfully misused state power as a weapon, orchestrating the massacre of innocent citizens for sheer political gain. By renaming it after Shri Gopal Mukherjee, the fearless soul who stepped up as a protector-in-chief to defend and save thousands of innocent lives, finally restoration of historical justice will be achieved by honouring a true guardian and savior.
It's time, West Bengal remembers, corrects and honours the Real Heroes.
आगा खां पैलेस - यही वो जेल है जहाँ महात्मा' मोहनदास करमचंद गांधी को 2 साल तक यातनाएं दी गई थीं।
सजा इतनी कठोर थी कि 'बापू' को स्नान करने के लिए 10×10 फिट के संगमरमर लगे बाथरूम में नहाना पड़ता था।
सजा इतनी कठोर थी कि बापू को 8×8 फिट के नर्म, मुलायम मखमली बिस्तर में सोने के लिए मजबूर किया जाता था।
सजा इतनी कठोर थी कि 20 एकड़ में फैले आगा खां पैलेस की हरी हरी मुलायम घास(लॅान) में घूमने के लिए मजबूर किया जाता था।
सजा इतनी कठोर थी कि 12×12 फिट के स्टडी रूम में आलीशान टेबल कुर्सी में बेहतरीन इंग्लैंड के कागज में लेखन के लिए मजबूर किया गया।
और हां, सजा इतनी कठोर थी कि बापू की पत्नी भी साथ में रहती थी।
सजा इतनी कठोर थी कि आने जाने के लिए मर्सडीज कार में बैठने को मजबूर किया जाता था।
और उधर वीर सावरकर को इतनी आसान सजा मिली थी, हाथ पांव लोहे की जंजीरों से बंधे थे और दो जन्म की कालापानी की और उसमे भी रोज कोल्हू से तेल निकालना पड़ता था।
गांधी देश के बापू बन गए और सावरकर जी अंग्रेजो से माफी मानने वाला !
नोट:-जिसे विश्वास नही है वे पुणे में स्थित आगा खां पैलेस घूम आए, जो आज भी गांधी संग्रहालय के रूप में है।
The most dishonest who supervised the most corrupt govt in Bharat ever was this disgrace Manmohan Singh
Manmohan Singh was the worst Prime Minister ever because Inflation was very high during his tenure
Saar great Economist saar🤡
🔴 Japón RECHAZA la construcción de cementerios musulmanes en su territorio. 🇯🇵
"En Japón, la cremación es una tradición… la solución adecuada para los musulmanes es repatriar los restos a sus países de origen."
¿Estás de acuerdo con Japón?
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.7M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.9M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.7M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.2M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70.1M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.9M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers