indira gandhi visit to afghanistan

PM Modi's Historic Austria Visit: Here's What Happened during Indira And Nehru's Trips

P rime Minister Narendra Modi after concluding his two-day Russia visit will depart to Austria, marking another historic moment in India’s diplomatic outlook. Historic because this will be the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister in 41 years. Modi’s visit will revolve around further agreements between India and Austria, particularly the India-Austria startup bridge commenced in February 2024 with an aim to boost startup cultures in both countries.

We travel back in time and look at the previous three visits by Indian PMs to Austria: two by Indira Gandhi and one by Jawaharlal Nehru.

INDIRA GANDHI’S VISIT IN 1983

Shortly after her arrival in Vienna on June 19, 1983, a local newspaper caricatured Gandhi warmly greeting Chancellor Fred Sinowatz, humorously suggesting they were unfamiliar faces to each other.

However, within three days, both leaders engaged in substantive discussions on global economics, Afghanistan, and bilateral relations. Chancellor Sinowatz praised Gandhi’s political foresight and leadership of the non-aligned movement.

The visit led to the establishment of the Indo-Austrian Economic Commission, set to meet in October to boost bilateral economic ties.

Discussions also included a major Austrian steel project in India and joint ventures in third countries, along with a supply of 1,500 horses for Indian mountain troops.

Dubbed the “Vienna Waltz”, Gandhi’s visit was a prelude to the West Europe-India dialogue congress in Alpbach, attended by over 500 delegates, including 150 from India. Gandhi emphasised global peace and urged redirecting military spending to Third World development.

Reactions varied at the congress, with some criticising Gandhi’s impact on Indian institutions. Despite differences, the tour successfully increased interest in India among European nations, aligning with Gandhi’s goals.

INDIRA’S VISIT IN 1971 AMID IMPENDING WAR

Amid escalating military tensions between India and Pakistan, with increasing troop movements along their shared border, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi continued her tour of Western countries. On October 27, 1971, during her three-day official visit to Austria, she met President Franz Jonas in Vienna.

Gandhi reiterated that only a political solution acceptable to the people of East Pakistan could resolve the crisis, describing the situation as “extremely dangerous”.

The visit to Austria was part of her broader mission to brief Western leaders on the conflict between India and Pakistan, as well as the internal strife between the Pakistani government and the secessionist movement in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan). During her meeting with President Jonas, Gandhi was introduced to top Austrian officials. She later held a 90-minute discussion with Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky.

After this meeting, Gandhi highlighted the dire refugee crisis, noting that between thirty thousand and forty-two thousand refugees from East Pakistan were crossing into India daily. She emphasised the perilous nature of the situation and reiterated that a political settlement acceptable to the people of East Pakistan was essential for easing the crisis. Gandhi, who had arrived in Vienna from Brussels, was on the second leg of her six-nation tour in Europe.

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S VISIT IN JUNE 1955

Jawaharlal Nehru visited Austria in 1955, the same year in which the country gained independence. Nehru’s Austria visit was part of his larger East European tour of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Italy.

The visit by Nehru is remembered for his address to the Vienna reception on June 27, 1955, where he remarked that all countries must come together to prevent any escalation towards a war. He made this statement just a month after Austria had signed the agreement on Austrian Neutrality in the midst of the Cold War period.

PM Modi's Historic Austria Visit: Here's What Happened during Indira And Nehru's Trips

Written By : Aavish Kant

Last Updated: July 09, 2024, 19:51 IST

New Delhi, India

Austria's Chancellor Karl Nehammer and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. File pics

We travel back in time and look at the previous three visits by Indian PMs to Austria: two by Indira Gandhi and one by Jawaharlal Nehru

Prime Minister Narendra Modi after concluding his two-day Russia visit will depart to Austria, marking another historic moment in India’s diplomatic outlook. Historic because this will be the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister in 41 years. Modi’s visit will revolve around further agreements between India and Austria, particularly the India-Austria startup bridge commenced in February 2024 with an aim to boost startup cultures in both countries.

We travel back in time and look at the previous three visits by Indian PMs to Austria: two by Indira Gandhi and one by Jawaharlal Nehru.

INDIRA GANDHI’S VISIT IN 1983

Shortly after her arrival in Vienna on June 19, 1983, a local newspaper caricatured Gandhi warmly greeting Chancellor Fred Sinowatz, humorously suggesting they were unfamiliar faces to each other.

However, within three days, both leaders engaged in substantive discussions on global economics, Afghanistan, and bilateral relations. Chancellor Sinowatz praised Gandhi’s political foresight and leadership of the non-aligned movement.

The visit led to the establishment of the Indo-Austrian Economic Commission, set to meet in October to boost bilateral economic ties.

Discussions also included a major Austrian steel project in India and joint ventures in third countries, along with a supply of 1,500 horses for Indian mountain troops.

Dubbed the “Vienna Waltz”, Gandhi’s visit was a prelude to the West Europe-India dialogue congress in Alpbach, attended by over 500 delegates, including 150 from India. Gandhi emphasised global peace and urged redirecting military spending to Third World development.

Reactions varied at the congress, with some criticising Gandhi’s impact on Indian institutions. Despite differences, the tour successfully increased interest in India among European nations, aligning with Gandhi’s goals.

INDIRA’S VISIT IN 1971 AMID IMPENDING WAR

Amid escalating military tensions between India and Pakistan, with increasing troop movements along their shared border, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi continued her tour of Western countries. On October 27, 1971, during her three-day official visit to Austria, she met President Franz Jonas in Vienna.

Gandhi reiterated that only a political solution acceptable to the people of East Pakistan could resolve the crisis, describing the situation as “extremely dangerous”.

The visit to Austria was part of her broader mission to brief Western leaders on the conflict between India and Pakistan, as well as the internal strife between the Pakistani government and the secessionist movement in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan). During her meeting with President Jonas, Gandhi was introduced to top Austrian officials. She later held a 90-minute discussion with Austrian Chancellor Bruno Kreisky.

After this meeting, Gandhi highlighted the dire refugee crisis, noting that between thirty thousand and forty-two thousand refugees from East Pakistan were crossing into India daily. She emphasised the perilous nature of the situation and reiterated that a political settlement acceptable to the people of East Pakistan was essential for easing the crisis. Gandhi, who had arrived in Vienna from Brussels, was on the second leg of her six-nation tour in Europe.

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S VISIT IN JUNE 1955

Jawaharlal Nehru visited Austria in 1955, the same year in which the country gained independence. Nehru’s Austria visit was part of his larger East European tour of the USSR, Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Italy.

The visit by Nehru is remembered for his address to the Vienna reception on June 27, 1955, where he remarked that all countries must come together to prevent any escalation towards a war. He made this statement just a month after Austria had signed the agreement on Austrian Neutrality in the midst of the Cold War period.

• indira gandhi
• Jawaharlal Nehru
• Narendra Modi

The Economic Times daily newspaper is available online now.

Modi in austria: first indian pm to visit in 41 years after indira gandhi in 1983; details on why the visit happened.

Modi in Austria: Upon landing in Vienna, PM Modi took to X to share his anticipation for the scheduled engagements, which include high-level talks with Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer, interactions with the Indian community, and various other programs.

— narendramodi (@narendramodi)

— karlnehammer (@karlnehammer)

Read More News on

(Catch all the Business News , Breaking News , Budget 2024 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times .)

Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.

How Sebi orders fared before SAT

Why leading doctors, scientists pin hope on green jackfruit to fight fatty liver and cancer

Value guru Raamdeo seeks meaning of ‘eternity investing’ in the time of momentum

What Boeing’s ‘guilty’ plea means for AI, Akasa, SpiceJet et al.

How to solve the unreliability problem messing up India’s jobs data

JICA, ADB & PFC interested in funding INR76,220 crore Vadhavan port: JNPA Chairman

Find this comment offensive?

Choose your reason below and click on the Report button. This will alert our moderators to take action

Reason for reporting:

Your Reason has been Reported to the admin.

To post this comment you must

Log In/Connect with:

Fill in your details:

Will be displayed

Will not be displayed

Share this Comment:

Uh-oh this is an exclusive story available for selected readers only..

Worry not. You’re just a step away.

Prime Account Detected!

It seems like you're already an ETPrime member with

Login using your ET Prime credentials to enjoy all member benefits

Log out of your current logged-in account and log in again using your ET Prime credentials to enjoy all member benefits.

To read full story, subscribe to ET Prime

₹34 per week

Billed annually at ₹2499 ₹1749

Super Saver Sale - Flat 30% Off

On ET Prime Membership

Unlock this story and enjoy all members-only benefits.

Offer Exclusively For You

Save up to Rs. 700/-

ON ET PRIME MEMBERSHIP

Get 1 Year Free

With 1 and 2-Year ET prime membership

Get Flat 40% Off

Then ₹ 1749 for 1 year

ET Prime at ₹ 49 for 1 month

Monsoon Offer

Get flat 20% off on ETPrime

90 Days Prime access worth Rs999 unlocked for you

Exclusive Economic Times Stories, Editorials & Expert opinion across 20+ sectors

Stock analysis. Market Research. Industry Trends on 4000+ Stocks

​Get 1 Year Complimentary Subscription of TOI+ worth Rs.799/-​

Stories you might be interested in

• Law & Policy
• Society & Culture
• Business & Economy
• Science & Technology
• Daan & Sewa
• Hindu Human Rights
• Write For Us

HinduPost is the voice of Hindus. Support us. Protect Dharma

Will you help us hit our goal?

We’re aiming to add 2,500 contributions in the next 30 days, to help keep HinduPost free.

Why have successive generations of Nehru-Gandhis visited Babur’s tomb?

Mystique around the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has been one of the tools they have used to perpetuate their chokehold on power. Carefully choreographed appearances and fawning coverage by the English-language media has ensured that the first family escapes the sort of scrutiny which other public figures undergo.

A recent article by Shri RK Ohri (ex-IPS) throws light on a little known quirk of history – his research shows that successive generations of the Nehru-Gandhi family have visited the Mughal invader Babur’s grave in present day Afghanistan. HinduPost decided to catch up with Shri Ohri and interview him on this topic –

The above interview was conducted basis the following article by Shri RK Ohri –

Why Ba bur Beckons Nehru- Gandhis !

Internet is a great forum . It allows us to probe many un explored and partially explored events by joining the dots to arrive at the truth or rebut the falsehood. Unfortunately it has also become a source of false news!

One interesting episode revealed by umpteen bloggers on Internet is the mystery of every generation of Nehru- Gandhis since 1959 visiting the Mazar (tomb) of Babur in Kabul. It is amazing that the Indian historians jocularly labelled ‘ Munshis ’ by the Hindu ideologue Sita Ram Goel , have failed to connect several dots of our post-independence history. Their biggest failure has been the omission to exp l ore and expose why B abur’s grave continues to beckon every generatio n of the Dynasty aka Nehru Gandhis !

Dynasty’s Fascination for Babur

Equally remiss has bee n the mainstream media. The scribes and columnists, too, failed to notice that the following scions of the Dynasty representing every generation fr om Pandit Nehru onwards to Rahul Gandhi have visited Babur’s grave, ostensibly to pay obeisa nce to the founder of the Mughal empire :

• Jawaharlal Nehru visited Kabul in 1959, and reportedly visited Babur’s grave.[ 1]
• Indira Gandhi visited Babur’s grave in 1968 , as revealed by Natwar Singh in his book, ‘One Life is not Enough’ .[ 2]
• Rahul , Dr Manmohan Singh and his Foreign Minister, Natwar Singh visited the grave of Babur in August 2005. T he then N ational S security A dviser , M K Narayanan, had also accompanied the former P.M.[3 ]

T ime has come to question Rahul Gandhi aka Janeudhari Shiv Bhakt , why every generation of Nehru Gandhis has been visiting Babur’s grave in Kabul since 1959 ? Why must they pay obeisance to the murderer of lakhs of Hindus and plunderer of our temples ? Why must, even today , Zaheeruddin Ba bur, the destroyer of Sri Ram temple in Ayodhya , continue t o beckon and inspire the members of Nehru -Gandhi dynasty ?

The episode of Indira Gandhi bowing for a few minutes in silence at the grave of Babur in 1968 , mentioned by Natwar Singh in his recent book , did cause some commotion among Hindu  blog writers, but not of the mainstream English media. However, the visit of Rah ul Gandhi and the Dr Manmohan Singh in company of the then Foreign Minister Natwar Singh to Babur’s grave in August, 2005, did receive some attention of the media. According to the correspondent of Chandigarh-based daily The Tribune , on being questioned Rahul Gandhi said that “the Press was reading too much into his visit to Kabul with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh” and dismissed the allegation that he was seeking to derive political mileage from his visit to the Afghan capital.[4 ] The Tribune story mentioned that Rahul Gandhi accompanied the Prime Minister almost everywhere, including the Presidential p a lace and Babur’s tomb in Bagh -e Babur . It further added that the External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh and Nati onal Security Adviser, M K Narayanan , seemed to be answering the question that Rahul was asked.

The s urprise of surprises was that no media guru tried to join the prominent ly visible dots of the repetitive visits of successive generations of the Dynasty to Babur’s grave in Kabul ! Is it due to the Dynasty’s secret affiliation with Mughal marauders? The searching comments about fascination of Nehru- Gandhis made by inquisitive blog g ers like Rita Gupta, Arushi Bahugana and  Ramadhir were ignored .

No one questioned Natwar Singh about his intelligent understanding of Indira’s bowing before the dead Babur . Did it point to some secret affiliation with the notorious invader ? Nor did any investigative journalist question the accidental Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh that who prompted him to add a visit to Ba bur’s grave in his itinerary  in August 2005 visit to Afg h anistan . Was it Rahul Gandhi, or w as it ju st a brainwave which enthused the imagination of the  former Prime Minister ? Being a Sikh he could not have been an ardent admirer of Babur whose tyranny has been con demned forcefully by Guru Nanak . An Oxford-educated scholar like Dr Manmohan Singh could not have added the visit to Babur’s grave to his Afghanistan itinerary   without being prompted by some heavy weight politician (read Rahul Gandhi).

S ubalter n Story of Ghiyasuddin Ghazi

According to Pandit Nehru, his forefathers were Ka s h miri Hindus – his great grandfather was Pandit Raj Kaul who had migrated to Delhi in 1716 on the invitation of the then Mughal ruler, Farrukhsiyar;  his grandfather, Gangadhar Nehru , was the Kotwal of Delhi. But that claim is without any proof. As a rule, Muslim rulers appointed only Muslims as City Kotwal , never ever a Hindu. Farukhsiyar was an extremely cruel ruler who wanted to crush the Hindus and convert all of them to Islam! He was responsible for the capture of Banda Singh Bahadur and bringing him to Delhi along with speared heads of scores of gallant Sikhs and Hindu followers of Guru Gobind Singh. The Moghul ruler took fiendish delight in torturing Banda Singh , including 700 Sikh s oldiers . He even slaughtered his innocent son. It is highly unlikely that Farrukhsiyar wo uld invite a Kashmiri Hindu to c ome and settle in Delhi.

Ever since Natwar Singh disclosed the secret of Indira Gandhi bowing  before Babur’s grave, serious doubts a rose in the minds of many intellectuals, including some bloggers, about the origin of the Nehru dynasty. And that led to an alternative narrative of the Muslim ancestry of the family. In a blog titled ‘Hidden Facts About The Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty, posted on the website of speakingtree.in   it was claimed that the Nehru dynasty founder was a Muslim nobleman , Ghiyasuddin Ghazi (Ghazi means  kaffir-killer) , who was the Kotwal of Delhi before the uprising of 1857. But historically,  there was never any tradition of appointing a Hindu as City Kotwal during Mughal era – and that too of Delhi which was capital of the Muslim rulers.

According to alternative history, Ghiyasuddin Ghazi, not Gangadhar Nehru, was the Kotwal of Delhi in 1857. After capturing Delhi the British started hunting and killing Muslims all across Delhi and sons of Bahadur Shah Zafar were beheaded by them. In Delhi, there is  a place near Darya Ganj which to this day is called ‘ Khooni Darwaza ”. T hat infamous epithet was given to the place because hundreds of Mughals were killed or hanged at that spot by the British so ldiers.

It is said a t that time the city Kotwal Ghiyasuddin Ghazi ran away from Delhi along with his family, fearing capture by the rampaging British troops. He was allegedly intercepted by the British soldiers at Agra because he wore the attire of a Mughal noble man and looked like a Muslim functionary. But he managed to dodge them and escaped by claiming that he was a Kashmiri Hindu whose name was Pandit Gangadhar Nehru. This fact has been elaborately explained by a scholar, M. K. Singh , in the 13 th volume of the ‘Encyclopedia of Indian War of Independence’ ( ISBN:81-251-3745-9), published in 2009. M K Singh is the well-established author of six books . No one ever contested what M K Singh wr ote in his well researched tome nearly a decade ago.

Exploits of Hindu -K iller Babur

In his autobiography, Ba bur admits that his most important goal was to kill the Hindus and spread Islam across Hindusthan . In Tuzuk -e Babri he boasts of his fondness for killing the kaffir Hindus and building towers of their heads.

The sordid story of Babur’s barbarity has been copiously narrated by Guru Nan a k in Babur N ama . In the first shabad o f Tilang Rag, Guru Nanak laments the “great sorrowful condition of women” caused by depravity of lustful invaders subjecting them to cruelty .[5 ] . Similarly,  in the  Third Shabad , Raag Asa , Mahala Ik , Ashtapadi Ghar 3 , Guru Nanak described in detail how Hindu women with plaits of black hair were humiliated by shaving their heads and nooses were put around their necks to torture and insult them.[6 ]   T hrice Babur’s tent had to be moved to a higher level because the ground became clogged with the blood of th e bodies of kaffirs slaughtered by his troops. [7]

Disdain for Hindu King Pithviraj Chauhan

It is remark able that none of the Nehru- Gandhis ever cared to visit the grave of Prithviraj Chauhan located in Ghazni , some distance away from Kabul. This wilful omission of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasts not visiting the dilapidated grave of the valiant Hindu king Prithviraj Cha uhan has remained a fo rgotten chapter of the  Dynasty’s Babur-loving narrative.

Most Indians (read dumb Hindus) don’t know that the ‘grave’ of Prithviraj in Afghanistan is visited by the locals even today to vent their anger for his killing Muhammed Ghori , 900 years ago, says E. Jaiwant Paul in his book, “Arms and Armour : Tra ditional Weapons of India”. Jaiwant Paul wrote that on the outskirts of Ghazni are two domed tombs. The larger one is of Muhammed Ghori and few meters away is t he smaller tomb of Prithviraj Chauhan. What Paul saw during his visit was shocking. He writes, “In the centre of the second tomb was a bare patch of earth where the actual grave should have been. Hanging over this spot from the top of the dome is a long, thick rope ending in a knot at shoulder height. Local visitors would grab hold of this knot in one hand and stamp vigorously and repeatedly with one foot on the bare patch in the centre of the tomb,” wrote Paul, a weapons collector . On seeking an explanation, he learnt that the Afghans still stamped with their feet on the grave of Prithviraj beca use he had killed Ghori , 900 years ago , for which reason they hate Prithviraj Chauhan .

The hidden reasons for Dynasty’s contempt for the Hindu king and love for the Mughal tyrant Babur are two important  questions which require in-depth research. It is time that the Indian Council of Historical Research undertook this important project!

I rest my pen by quoting the fictional detective James Bond. I n the famous novel ‘ Goldfinger ’ penned by Ian Fleming, James Bond says, “Once is happenstance, twice is concidence . Three times is enemy action “. It is for the reader to assess what should we call the fourth time coincidence! Shall we call it the hyper-history of the Hindu history?

[1.] Source: IntelliBriefs , ‘ Nehru Visits Babur Gr ave 19 Sept, 1959′ – and Images on Wikipedia .

[2] Source: ‘One Life is Not Enough’ – by Natwar Singh; ‘When the Empress of India paid homage to Babar’ on rediff.com

[3]  Source: The Tribune, Chandigarh, August 29, 2005, ‘ Rahul Gandhi’s foray into international diplomacy’

[5] Source: postcard.news   ‘The real face of Mughal emperor Babur which no history books will tell you!’

Did you find this article useful? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.

Subscribe to our channels on  Telegram  &  YouTube . Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

Related Articles

The best arun yogiraj interview that many missed, their forefathers gave up turbans after losing ram janmabhoomi to mughals; 500 years later, this community from ayodhya fulfills a great vow, “taj mahal not built by shahjahan”: pil in delhi high court demands correction of history books.

• Audio-Video
• Forgotten History
• Nehru-Gandhis

[…] Gandhi in 1968 and again in 1976 – this time with Rajiv and grandson Rahul Gandhi. And in 2005, Rahul Gandhi visited the site again with PM Manmohan Singh, just after UPA regained power and Rahul became a […]

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

 Yes, add me to your mailing list

Latest Articles

फेसबुक के एडल्ट ग्रुप्स में डालता था कॉलेज छात्राओं की फोटो, करता था गंदे कमेंट: केरल में शिकायत के बाद गिरफ्तार हुए sfi के..., ‘भाग कु$या, वरना पेट में जो बच्चा है उसे भी मार डालूँगा’: इमरान ने भगवा, कलावा और तिलक का इस्तेमाल कर हिन्दू लड़की को..., ‘kingpin’ arvind kejriwal’s close associate directly involved in handling rs 25 crore bribe money for aap: ed chargesheet, bangladesh: islamists attacked hindu minorities in dhaka, many injured, केरल के मंदिर की परंपरा में दखल दे रहा था सरकारी बोर्ड, हाई कोर्ट ने रोका: कहा- मुख्य पुजारी की सहमति के बिना नहीं....

Sign up to receive HinduPost content in your inbox

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

HinduPost is a news, commentary and opinion digital media outlet that provides the correct perspective on issues concerning Hindu society.

Popular Tags

COPYRIGHT © HINDUPOST.IN

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

Thanks for Visiting Hindupost

An Interview with Indira Gandhi

“I do not like carving the world into segments; we are one world

Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi arrives in Washington this week for her first official visit in nearly eleven years. Her mission is to narrow India’s differences with the U.S. on a number of issues. Among them: Washington’s vocal opposition to the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, the sale of 40 American F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan and the controversial U.S. naval base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The Prime Minister’s son, Rajiv, her heir apparent, will accompany her on the trip. On the eve of her departure, Gandhi discussed foreign and domestic problems in an exclusive interview with TIME’S New Delhi bureau chief Marcia Gauger. Excerpts:

On relations with the U.S. We think we should be friends and want to do everything we can for friendship. Of course, we cannot jettison our basic policies. They are not thought up, they are thought out—considered. The tendency in the U.S. is to assume that a person is either 100% with you or not with you. This is not realistic. You can be with a person on some issues and not on others. My goal is to try to show the reality of India, that it is a country with enormous problems but trying to solve them, that it is a country committed to democracy, to peace in the world and to nonalignment. It is equally important to get to know President Reagan better, to understand U.S. policies and to create greater comprehension of our policies. I have met the President only for a very brief moment, but I found him a very open person and very easy to talk to.

On relations with the Soviet Union. I do not think there has been any cooling of relations. Our policy has always been based on certain principles and what we consider our national interest. So it cannot swing from side to side. We believe that we should have friendship with all countries and that friendship with one country or group of countries should not come in the way of friendship with all the others. On the subject of Afghanistan, we have made our stand very clear. We are opposed to a foreign presence, whether in the shape of troops or any other type of interference, anywhere. Everybody rushed in at once to condemn the Soviet Union. We said we disapproved, but we did not join in the condemnation because we felt that it would not improve the situation. We have said from the beginning that there has to be a political solution in Afghanistan, a negotiated settlement.

On relations with Pakistan. I do not know how close they want to get. We have been anxious for friendship, not for any idealistic reason, but because it is a necessity for us. We want our neighbors to be stable and strong. Nothing is so dangerous as a weak neighbor. You just do not know what they will do. Throughout the years, we have taken all the initiatives. My father [Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister] offered a no-war pact in 1949, and in different forms the offer has been repeated. Then we signed the Simla Agreement [a 1972 accord that calls for the two countries to negotiate their differences], but they did not want the words no war used. Now suddenly, along with the purchase of the F16, President Zia puts in this little bonbon about a no-war pact. I have suggested that we have a treaty of cooperation, friendship and peace, in which a no-war declaration would, of course, be included. And I have announced publicly that pact or no pact, India will not attack.

On U.S. policies in the Third World. I do not like carving the world into segments; we are one world, whether we like it or not. It is difficult for the affluent countries to understand the pressures we have from our own people. We got left out of the race for industrialization, and we have to industrialize at a time when people are more conscious of their rights and privileges. For India, with its vast population [683 million], everything is multiplied that many times. Methods that work in an advanced society do not always work in ours. We are told by the U.S., for instance, that we should depend more on private commercial borrowing, but that just is not possible. There are limits to it. And where there are gaps, the state has to step in.

On India’s caste tensions. Caste feeling is not something that you can remove in a day. It has taken us a long time to get people committed to the nation. We think that is very important in a country with so many religions. There must be equal respect for all religions and all castes. This is not to say that there is not caste conflict. There is from time to time. We have given the Harijans [untouchables] new respect, and those who were exploiting them resent it. The Harijans themselves are much more aggressive and much more conscious of their rights. This is what brings about confrontation.

On a Nehru family dynasty. Suppose I want somebody to become Prime Minister. How could I manage it? That person would have to go through the grilling process of election. It is a question entirely of who the country wants. The people have reposed confidence in my family dating back to my grandfather because they feel we are sincerely concerned. I do not know whether the people will continue to vote for my family when the time comes. After all, I had a very big defeat in 1977.

On India’s problems. Our biggest problem is backwardness, the disparities between the haves and the havenots. But I would like to say it is not true that the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. The rich are richer, as they are all over the world. But I would not say that the poor are poorer, except that they are more conscious of it. The general level of living is higher, and a lot of people have come into the middle class. But poverty remains. There are other difficulties, some of which we share with other countries: the growth of cities and towns; how to prevent pollution; how to conserve the environment, wildlife; all those things. We also have very big problems with industry, with agriculture, with our balance of payments. When we came back to power in 1980, we found the economy in very bad shape. We made investment decisions for future development, and I think they restored a sense of direction to the economy. The G.N.P. has gone up, per capita income has gone up, and we have increased irrigation, food output and petroleum production. But the more things go up, the more are wanted. You are simply not able to catch up.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• ‘We’re Living in a Nightmare:’ Inside the Health Crisis of a Texas Bitcoin Town
• Why Are COVID-19 Cases Spiking Again ?
• Lionel Messi Isn't Finished Yet
• Fiji’s Fiery Battle Against Plastics
• Column: AI-Driven Behavior Change Could Transform Health Care
• How to Watch Lost in 2024 Without Setting Yourself Up for Disappointment
• How Often Do You Really Need to Wash Your Sheets ?
• The 15 Best Movies to Watch on a Plane
• Get Our Paris Olympics Newsletter in Your Inbox

Contact us at [email protected]

In his memoir detailing Indira Gandhi’s visit to Babur’s tomb, Natwar Singh did not attribute these statements to her

A widely circulated social media post alleges to recount an anecdote about Indira Gandhi from former Foreign Minister Natwar Singh’s book titled ‘One Life is Not Enough.’ According to the post, Natwar Singh wrote in his book that while at Babar’s grave in Afghanistan, Indira Gandhi asserted that ‘they were his heirs, and the country was under their control.’ In this article, we will fact-check the claim presented in the post.

Claim: At Babar’s grave in Afghanistan, Indira Gandhi asserted that ‘they were his heirs, and the country was under their control’ – Natwar Singh in his book titled ‘One Life is Not Enough’ Fact: Natwar Singh in his memoir ‘One Life Is Not Enough’ did mention about Indira Gandhi paying obeisance to Babur’s grave. Nevertheless, while recounting the incident, Natwar Singh did not ascribe the viral statements to Mrs. Gandhi. Hence, the claim made in the post is FALSE.

‘One Life Is Not Enough’ is the autobiography of K. Natwar Singh, a former Minister of External Affairs, and a prominent Indian National Congress politician. In this memoir , Natwar Singh discusses Indira Gandhi’s visit to Kabul in August 1969.

Recalling an incident from the visit, Natwar Singh noted that Mrs. Gandhi paid obeisance to Babur’s grave. Nevertheless, while recounting the incident, Natwar Singh did not ascribe any comments to Mrs. Gandhi that align with the viral claim.

“She stood at the grave with her head slightly lowered and I behind her. She said to me, ‘I have had my brush with history.’ I told her I had had two. ‘What do you mean?’ she asked. I said that paying homage to Babur in the company of the Empress of India was a great honor”, wrote Natwar Singh.

Furthermore, in contrast to the viral claim, the book specifies that Indira Gandhi visited Babur’s tomb during the daytime, and the visit was not deliberate. Additionally, there are no credible reports indicating that Natwar Singh attributed the viral statements to Indira Gandhi in any of his speeches. There is also no evidence to conclude that he said so in any of his other books. Had Natwar Singh ascribed these comments to Mrs. Gandhi, the media would have reported it. Furthermore, we could not find any reports stating that Indira Gandhi asserted she was a heir of Babur.

To sum it up, in his memoir detailing her visit to Babur’s tomb, Natwar Singh did not attribute these statements to Indira Gandhi.

About Author

Related Posts

Comments are closed.

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Slovenščina
• Science & Tech
• Russian Kitchen

Interpreting the 1971 Indo-Soviet Cooperation Treaty as a Turning Point in South Asian Strategic History

May 27, 2020 Anvesh Jain Op-eds , Politics , South Asia

The cataclysm of India’s Partition left caustic wounds that would inform and shape the patterns of international relations in the region for decades after formal independence had been achieved. The situational difficulties of India between two Pakistans haunted Indian strategic thinkers; these fears had, after all, been twice actualised by wars in 1947 and 1965 over the contested Kashmir region. In each instance, Indian planners were deeply wary of the logistical challenges involved in fighting a two-front war. Amongst the midsummer monsoons of 1971, calls for Bengali liberation grew as protests and demonstrations raged across East Pakistan, generating an influx of refugees into neighbouring India. [1] Amidst this turmoil, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi saw an opportunity to permanently reconfigure the strategic geography of the subcontinent to India’s favour – to do so, she went searching for a hegemonic ally. From her designs and diplomacy came the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation. The Treaty reflects ideological ties and South Asian geopolitical realities in the summer of 1971, and provided a framework for India and the Soviet Union to declare “enduring peace… sincere friendship… and comprehensive cooperation”. [2] The exigencies and rivalries of national actors in Asia, and the nature of the greater global hegemonic struggles culminated in this unique partnership, representing the apogee of superpower involvement in the Indian subcontinent during the Cold War.

The 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty illustrates a concerted effort to rebalance great power relations in the Indian subcontinent, formally completing the strategic realignment of South Asia and furthering the rift between China and the Soviet Union. Indira Gandhi wished to take advantage of protest sentiments and the refugee crisis in East Pakistan, believing that with decisive military action she would be able to cleave Pakistan into two separate nations, [3] thus ending the threat of a two-front war and heavily reorienting the regional balance of power in India’s favour. A natural enmity existed between India and Pakistan, of course, but a series of border conflicts and the Indian government’s unflinching commitment to the cause of independent Tibet had soured relations with neighbouring China as well. [4] From their mutual animosity towards India, China and Pakistan gradually developed into ‘all-weather allies,’ ensuring that any Indian threats to splinter East and West Pakistan would be met by swift reproach from the People’s Liberation Army. This understanding had been precariously maintained until two new developments in the 1960s changed the established equation: China was moving away from the USSR, and the American President Nixon was moving towards China. [5] Indian conflagrations with the People’s Republic in 1962 and the Islamic Republic in 1965 further undergirded the seismic regional reconstitutions of the novel 1970s.

In a bid to exploit the Sino-Soviet divide and to get closer to China, Nixon appealed to Pakistan; to counter the developing US-China-Pakistan axis, the Soviets publically strengthened ties with India. Tellingly published in Hindi, Russian, and English by their respective foreign ministries, the text of the agreement was purposefully intended for an international audience. Perhaps more important is not what was, but what was not explicitly stated in the terms of the Treaty. Chinese, American, and Pakistani diplomats likely inferred that Indo-Soviet aims to “preserve and strengthen peace in Asia and throughout the world” would have implications and repercussions on their own strategic planning. [6] With the adoption of the treaty, India had, for the first time since Independence, departed from its signature conception of non-alignment – particularly the tenets of “abstention from power politics” and the “refusal in advance of military commitments to another country”. [7] This break from Nehruvian policy completed the rebalancing of South Asia’s geopolitical equilibrium, centred on competing pacts that would last up to and beyond the end of the Cold War.

The lexicon of the 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty provides detailed insight into the national and personal objectives of the leaders of India and the Soviet Union at this time, and points to the forging of a genuine multilevel relationship between the two states. Segments of the Treaty built upon previous trade agreements, and furthermore “[attach] great importance to economic, scientific, and technological cooperation”. [8] The scope of these people-to-people cultural connections go farther yet, into realms as varied as “art, literature, education, public health, press, radio, television, cinema, tourism, and sports”. [9] It appears that both sides wanted to make legitimate good on the provisions and stipulations of according one another “most-favoured-nation treatment”. [10] Even within the anodyne syntax of the official document, it is possible to see the expression and articulation of the respective political goals of India’s Prime Minister and the Soviet Union’s Premier Leonid Brezhnev. Alliance with India – leader of the Non-Aligned Movement and symbol of democratic decolonisation – bolstered the Soviet Union’s anti-colonial credentials. While Nixon abandoned his predecessors’ ‘hearts and minds’ approach to the developing world in favour of strict Realist doctrine, [11] Brezhnev spoke to a rapt Third World through his Treaty with India, repeatedly and deliberately “[condemning] colonialism and racialism in all forms and manifestations”. [12] Indira Gandhi, a proponent of socialism and centralisation, used the Treaty as a means to move India into the Soviet sphere of ideological influence in exchange for the arms and diplomatic support needed to realise her military ambitions. [13] Superpower backing granted greater operational and strategic freedom to conduct Indian foreign policy. In the instance of an attack against either nation, the treaty stipulates that India and the USSR will “enter into mutual consultations in order to remove such threat and take appropriate effective measures to ensure peace and the security of their countries”. [14] With the Soviet Union acting as hegemonic counterweight to the United States and a restraint on Chinese aggression, Indira Gandhi was free to pursue military involvement in East Pakistan by December of 1971 without fear of exogenous interference.

That the 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Peace, and Cooperation was signed under the auspices of Sardar Swaran Singh and Andrei Gromyko, two immensely respected plenipotentiaries and the highest-ranking diplomats of their respective nations, speaks volumes as to the importance accorded to this text by the Soviet and Indian governments. Making full use of the Soviet protection guaranteed by this Treaty, Indian forces were able to rout the Pakistani military in a mere thirteen days, eliciting the creation of independent Bangladesh and setting the stage for India’s undisputed preeminence as the premier great power in South Asia. Vestiges of the 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty echo throughout a landmark accord signed between India and Bangladesh in the following year, employing a vastly similar style and rhetoric. The Treaty cemented India’s place in the Soviet strategic imagination, while future Indian leaders embraced the move into the Soviet sphere until the dissolution of the USSR and India’s subsequent economic liberalization in 1991. [15] The de facto departure from Jawaharlal Nehru’s principled non-alignment marked a significant turning point in the history of independent India’s foreign policy, and the 1971 Treaty still forms the basic framework for the ‘special relationship’ that persists between India and the Soviet Union’s successor state, the Russian Republic, to this day.

Anvesh Jain is a student pursuing an Honours Bachelor of Arts at the University of Toronto – St. George, with a specialisation in International Relations. He is actively involved both on and off campus in Toronto, as well as back home in Calgary, Alberta. Anvesh has worked as a Constituency Assistant in the Parliamentary Riding of Calgary Forest Lawn, and as a Program Editor for the NATO Association of Canada. His research interests include topics in Canadian and South Asian international relations, with particular regard for questions of grand strategy and diplomatic history. His work has been published by the Mackenzie Institute, the Southern California International Review, and the Literary Review of Canada, and he is an avid follower and player of Cricket.

Bibliography

Chiriyankandath, James. “Realigning India: Indian foreign policy after the Cold War.” The Round Table 93, Issue 274 (2004): 199-211.

“Intelligence Memorandum: Indo-Soviet Relations.” Secret issue December 4 th , 1972. Declassified November 18 th , 2008. General CIA Records . https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00875R001100130127-2.pdf .

Kapur, Ashok. “Indo-Soviet Treaty and the Emerging Asian Balance.”  Asian Survey  12, no. 6 (1972): 463-474.

“Memorandum of Acting Secretary of State Irwin to President Nixon.” August 9 th , 1971. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969-1976, Volume XI, South Asia Crisis, 1971 . https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v11/d116 .

Norbu, Dawa. “Tibet in Sino-Indian Relations: The Centrality of Marginality.”  Asian Survey  37, no. 11 (1997): 1078-1095.

Rajan, M.S. “The Indo-Soviet Treaty and India’s non-alignment policy.” Australian Outlook 26, Issue 2 (1972): 204-215.

Singh, S P. “Indo-Soviet Treaty — A Critique.”  Proceedings of the Indian History Congress  40 (1979): 1055-1061.

“Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation.” Proclaimed August 9 th , 1971. Ministry of External Affairs Media Center: Bilateral/Multilateral Documents .  https://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/5139/Treaty+of+ .

[1] S P. Singh, “Indo-Soviet Treaty — A Critique,”  Proceedings of the Indian History Congress  40 (1979): 1056.

[2] “Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation,” proclaimed August 9 th , 1971, Ministry of External Affairs Media Center: Bilateral/Multilateral Documents , Article I,  https://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/5139/Treaty+of+ .

[3] “Intelligence Memorandum: Indo-Soviet Relations,” secret issue December 4 th , 1972, declassified November 18 th , 2008, General CIA Records , 4-5, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00875R001100130127-2.pdf .

[4] Dawa Norbu, “Tibet in Sino-Indian Relations: The Centrality of Marginality,”  Asian Survey  37, no. 11 (1997): 1092-1093.

[5] “Memorandum of Acting Secretary of State Irwin to President Nixon,” August 9 th , 1971, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969-1976, Volume XI, South Asia Crisis, 1971 , Document 116, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v11/d116 .

[6] “Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation,” Article II.

[7] M.S. Rajan, “The Indo-Soviet Treaty and India’s non-alignment policy,” Australian Outlook 26, Issue 2 (1972): 204.

[8] “Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation,” Article VI.

[9] Ibid ., Article VII.

[10] Ibid., Article VI.

[11] Ashok Kapur, “Indo-Soviet Treaty and the Emerging Asian Balance,”  Asian Survey  12, no. 6 (1972): 467.

[12] “Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation,” Article III.

[13] “Intelligence Memorandum: Indo-Soviet Relations,” 5.

[14] “Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation,” Article IX.

[15] James Chiriyankandath, “Realigning India: Indian foreign policy after the Cold War,” The Round Table 93, Issue 274 (2004): 199.

• Diplomatic History
• Document Analysis
• Soviet Union

Related Articles

Radcliffe’s Line in the Sand: The Colonial Legacy of the Boundary Commission, Lord Mountbatten and the 1947 Partition Plan

Replacing Anxious Hindu Masculinity with the Muslim Body: Hindu Right-Wing Nation Building Through Hindu-Muslim Sexual Delineation

The Ordering and Reordering of Empire in Lutyens’ Imagining of Delhi

Be the first to comment, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

© 2017 Synergy: The Journal of Contemporary Asian Studies. All rights reserved.

7 Facts About Indira Gandhi

Her life involved politics from a young age

Almost from the moment she was born in 1917, Indira Nehru's life was steeped in politics. Her father, Jawaharlal Nehru , was a leader in the fight for India's independence from British rule, so it was natural for Indira to become a supporter of this struggle.

One tactic of India's nationalist movement was to reject foreign — particularly British — products. At a young age, Indira witnessed a bonfire of foreign goods. Later, the 5-year-old chose to burn her own beloved doll because the toy had been made in England.

When she was 12, Indira played an even bigger role in India's struggle for self-determination by leading children in the Vanar Sena (the name means Monkey Brigade; it was inspired by the monkey army that aided Lord Rama in the epic Ramayana). The group grew to include 60,000 young revolutionaries who addressed envelopes, made flags, conveyed messages and put up notices about demonstrations. It was a risky undertaking, but Indira was happy to be participating in the independence movement.

Her marriage wasn't widely supported

Indira's father was a close associate of Mahatma Gandhi . However, the fact that Indira ended up with the same last name as the iconic Indian leader wasn't due to a connection with the Mahatma; instead, Indira became Indira Gandhi following her marriage to Feroze Gandhi (who wasn't related to the Mahatma). And despite the fact that Indira and Feroze were in love, theirs was a wedding that few people in India supported.

Feroze, a fellow participant in the struggle for independence, was Parsi, while Indira was Hindu, and at the time mixed marriages were unusual. It was also out-of-the-norm not to have an arranged marriage. In fact, there was such a public outcry against the match that Mahatma Gandhi had to offer a public statement of support, which included the request: "I invite the writers of abusive letters to shed your wrath and bless the forthcoming marriage."

Indira and Feroze wed in 1942. Unfortunately, though the pair had two sons together, the marriage was not a great success. Feroze had extramarital liaisons, while much of Indira's time was spent with her father after he became India's prime minister in 1947. The marriage ended with Feroze's death in 1960.

A refugee crisis put pressure on her

In 1971, Indira faced a crisis when troops from West Pakistan went into Bengali East Pakistan to crush its independence movement. She spoke out against the horrific violence on March 31, but harsh treatment continued and millions of refugees began to stream into neighboring India.

Taking care of these refugees stretched India's resources; tensions also mounted because India offered support to independence fighters. Making the situation even more complicated were geopolitical considerations — President Richard Nixon wanted the United States to stand by Pakistan and China was arming Pakistan, while India had signed a "treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation" with the Soviet Union. The situation didn't improve when Indira visited the United States in November — Oval Office recordings from the time reveal that Nixon told Henry Kissinger the prime minister was an "old witch."

War began when Pakistan's air force bombed Indian bases on December 3; Indira recognized the independence of Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) on December 6. On December 9, Nixon directed a U.S. fleet to head for Indian waters — but then Pakistan surrendered on December 16.

The war's conclusion was a triumph for India and Indira (and, of course, for Bangladesh). After the conflict had ended, Indira declared in an interview, "I am not a person to be pressured — by anybody or any nation."

Millions were sterilized when she declared a state of emergency

In June 1975, Indira was found guilty of electoral malpractice. When rivals began advocating for her removal as prime minister, she opted to declare a state of emergency. Emergency rule would be a dark moment for India's democracy, with opponents imprisoned and press freedoms limited. Perhaps most shockingly, millions of people were sterilized — some against their will — during this period.

At the time, population control was seen as necessary in order for India to prosper (Indira's favored son and confidant, Sanjay, became particularly focused on reducing the birth rate). During the Emergency, the government directed its energies toward sterilization, with a focus on the simpler procedure of vasectomies. To encourage men to undergo the operation, incentives such as cooking oil and cash were offered.

Then government workers began to be required to meet sterilization quotas to get paid. Reports came out that vasectomies had been performed on boys, and that men were being arrested, then sent to be sterilized. Some began sleeping in fields so as to avoid sterilization teams. According to a 1977 article in TIME magazine, between April 1976 and January 1977, 7.8 million were sterilized (the initial target had been 4.3 million).

At the beginning of 1977, Indira called for elections, ending her Emergency rule. She'd expected to win this vote, but the fear and worries brought on by the sterilization policy contributed to her defeat at the polls, and she was kicked out of office.

She clashed with her daughter-in-law

In 1982, a disagreement between Indira and daughter-in-law Maneka led to a showdown. Practically from the moment Maneka wed Sanjay and entered Indira's household, the younger woman didn't fit in. After Sanjay died in 1980 (he was killed in a plane crash), tensions rose further. Things came to a head when Maneka defied Indira to attend a rally of Sanjay's former political allies (which didn't help the political interests of Rajiv, Sanjay's brother).

As punishment, Indira ordered Maneka to leave her house. In return, Maneka made sure the press captured her bags being unceremoniously left outside. Maneka also publicly decried her treatment, stating, "I have not done anything to merit being thrown out. I don't understand why I am being attacked and held personally responsible. I am more loyal to my mother-in-law than even to my mother."

Though the prime minister got Maneka to move out, she paid a price as well: Maneka took her son, Varun, with her, and being separated from a beloved grandson was a blow for Indira.

She was close with Margaret Thatcher

As a female leader in the 20th century, Indira Gandhi was a member of a very small club. Yet she had one friend who could understand what her life was like: the Iron Lady herself, Britain's Margaret Thatcher .

Indira and Thatcher first met in 1976. They got on well, despite the fact that Indira was engaged in her undemocratic Emergency rule at the time. And when Indira was temporarily out of power after her electoral defeat in 1977, Thatcher didn't abandon her. The two continued to have a good rapport after Indira returned to power in 1980.

When Thatcher came close to being killed by an IRA bomb in October 1984, Indira was sympathetic. Following Indira's own assassination a few weeks later, Thatcher ignored death threats to attend the funeral. The note of condolence that she sent to Rajiv stated: "I cannot describe to you my feelings at the news of the loss of your mother, except to say that it was like losing a member of my own family. Our many talks together had a closeness and mutual understanding which will always remain with me. She was not just a great statesman but a warm and caring person."

Her son succeeded her after her death

One significant factor that buoyed Indira's political career was her heritage. As the daughter of India's first prime minister, the Congress Party was happy to put her in a position of leadership, then later selected her to become prime minister.

After Indira's 1984 assassination, her son Rajiv succeeded her as prime minister. In 1991, he was also assassinated, but the Nehru-Gandhi clan still wasn't done with politics: though Rajiv's widow, Sonia, initially declined the Congress Party's request to step into a leadership role, she eventually became its president. By the 2014 election, Rajiv and Sonia's son Rahul had joined the Congress Party as well; however, the party went on to experience a big loss at the polls. At a press conference, Rahul admitted, "The Congress has done pretty badly, there is a lot for us to think about. As vice president of the party I hold myself responsible."

Yet not all Gandhis fared poorly in the 2014 election — as members of the victorious Bharatiya Janata Party, Maneka Gandhi and her son Varun are now in power, with Maneka serving as minister of women and child development (though considering her acrimonious relationship with Maneka, this development likely wouldn't thrill Indira). And despite their poor showing in 2014, the Congress Party refused to accept Sonia and Rahul's resignations. It seems that various members of Indira's family will continue to play a role in Indian politics for the foreseeable future.

Watch Next .css-16toot1:after{background-color:#262626;color:#fff;margin-left:1.8rem;margin-top:1.25rem;width:1.5rem;height:0.063rem;content:'';display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;}

Women’s History

Marsha P. Johnson

Kamala Harris

Deb Haaland

14 Hispanic Women Who Have Made History

5 Crowning Achievements of Maya Angelou

Ava DuVernay

Betty Friedan

Madeleine Albright

Greta Gerwig

Jane Goodall

Hillary Clinton

• International
• Today’s Paper
• Express Shorts
• Mini Crossword
• Premium Stories
• Health & Wellness

July 28, 1982, Forty Years Ago: PM Visit To The US

Prime minister indira gandhi left new delhi for new york amid reports from washington that the us was likely to allow foreign fuel for tarapur..

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi left New Delhi for New York amid reports from Washington that the US was likely to allow foreign fuel for Tarapur. Senior officials in Washington said that the US, which was unable to supply nuclear fuel to Tarapur atomic station, was likely to allow India to obtain fuel from external sources.

House Cross-voting

Defying the party whip, 32 Congress (I) MLAs indulged in cross-voting in the biennial elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from the assembly constituency and thereby brought about a defeat of one of the nine party candidates. The cross-voting, described as the largest in the recent history of the state legislatures, was largely in favour of R S Gavai, the president of the RPI (G) and the retired chairman of the Legislative Council. Gavai was elected in the last round in the process of elimination.

Goa Assembly Taken

More than 500 agitating students, including a large number of girls, gate-crashed into the Secretariat building in Panaji and “captured” the Goa Assembly hall, where the House was to meet at 2 pm. The students occupied the LT Governor’s chamber and the Assembly hall. The students, affiliated to the All-Goa Students Union, are demanding withdrawal of the fee hike announced by the Goa Board of Secondary Education.

Despite strong internal criticism, the national council of the Communist Party of India has endorsed “with overwhelming majority” its leaderships’ decisions to align with the BJP in the Haryana agitation against the Governor and in the presidential elections.

• Goa Assembly
• Indira Gandhi

40 Years Ago

"Son of a prominent politician confesses to being behind the wheel in fatal hit-and-run case, claims fear of consequences led to attempt to hide identity. Contradictory statements from main accused and driver, police seeking technical evidence. Accused sent for medical examination, CCTV footage shows alcohol consumption. Police to recreate events to understand incident."

EXPRESS OPINION

Best of Express

More Explained

Jul 11: Latest News

• 01 12 schoolchildren and driver killed after their minibus crashes in South Africa
• 02 PM Modi meets Indologists in Austria; discusses Indian history, philosophy, art & culture
• 03 UAE court issues life sentences to 43 it says operated local Muslim Brotherhood group
• 04 England vs Netherlands Semi Final, UEFA EURO 2024 Highlights: ENG beat NED 2-1 to go through to the final; late goal from super sub Ollie Watkins
• 05 BMW recalling more than 390,000 vehicles due to airbag inflator issue
• Elections 2024
• Political Pulse
• Entertainment
• Movie Review
• Newsletters
• Web Stories

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

MRS. GANDHI IN U.S. ON FIRST VISIT IN A DECADE

Indians in Washington are preparing to meet Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Washington Talk, page B4. By PAUL L. MONTGOMERY

With the deep Indian bow of friendship, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India arrived in the United States yesterday evening for her first visit in nearly 11 years.

The 64-year-old Prime Minister was greeted on her arrival at Kennedy International Airport by Federal, state and city officials as well as ambassadors and aides of her own country. Officers of Indian associations in New York presented her with sprays of red roses wrapped in cellophane, and she signed autographs for some in the crowd.

Mrs. Gandhi made no formal statement, but said, ''I am very glad to be here.'' Walking along the receiving line and talking with others behind barricades, she spoke of friendship and often bowed in the palms-together gesture of greeting.

''I am delighted to be here, to see President Reagan again and to see some of the American people, I hope,'' she said at one point. Asked whether she would discuss United States-Pakistani relations or the Soviet presence in Afghanistan during her meeting with the President, she replied, ''We will talk about all those things, probably.''

Mrs. Gandhi is to be the guest of honor at a luncheon at the Metropolitan Museum of Art today and is also to meet with Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar at the United Nations. She is scheduled to talk with President Reagan and Secretary of State George P. Schultz in Washington tomorrow and Friday, and she is to return to New York for the weekend. Her eight-day visit ends with stops in Los Angeles and Honolulu on the way home.

The Prime Minister and other Indian officials have said the purpose of her visit is to exchange views and promote greater understanding between the two countries. Issues such as American arms sales to Pakistan and American displeasure over India's atomic-bomb testing have not been mentioned specifically in statements preceding her visit.

Asked yesterday whether arms sales would be a topic in the talks, Mrs. Gandhi replied, ''I doubt it.'' Earlier, while awaiting the landing of her Air India jet, K.R. Narayanan, the Indian Ambassador to the United States, said, ''The P.M. is not coming to discuss arms purchases.''

Harry G. Barnes Jr., the American Ambassador to India, who was also on hand, was also asked about arms purchases. ''It is up to India to ask us what they want,'' he said.