Osho on Indian Leadership while 1948 and 1962 wars:
India has remained, for two thousand years, under slavery. Masters went on changing; slaves remained the same. My whole family was involved in the freedom struggle; everybody has been punished and jailed. I was continuously -- because I was too young -- fighting with my uncles, with my father, saying, "Can't you see a simple thing? For two thousand years in a country, which is not a country but a continent so vast that the whole of Europe can be accommodated in it, small countries like England, which is not bigger than a big district of India, control and rule. And it is not a single instance: Moguls came, Turks came, Mongols came, Hunas came. To anybody who wanted, this country was available, ready to be enslaved.
My point was that the real question is not to fight the people who have become your rulers. The real question is to fight within you the one who has become a slave. Otherwise this seems to be absolutely impossible. How could small groups of people come and rule all over the country? Certainly there must have been a slave in everybody's being.
And you can see it even today. After forty years of freedom, what have you got? When China attacked India after freedom, the first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was immensely annoyed. Forces were sent, and they were defeated; China had taken over thousands of miles of beautiful Himalayas. And once they were defeated, Jawaharlal Nehru said, "That land was useless -- not even grass grows there." Then why had you sent all those people to be murdered and butchered? -- to save a land where nothing grows, not even grass.
Since then no Indian president or prime minister has even mentioned it, or said, "What about those thousands of miles of beautiful Himalayas? When are you going to return it?"
Pakistan has taken a part of Kashmir. The man who was in charge of the Indian armies, General Chaudhuri... his wife was very interested in me and in my ideas. She told me the inside story. General Chaudhuri was ready, and he wanted to attack before the sun rose, before the Pakistani armies were even awake. And his logic was absolutely right: "We should not only take our part that Pakistan has taken, we should go deeper towards Lahore, which is not far away. We should take Lahore too."
Then you have the upper hand when the question of negotiations comes: "We can leave your Lahore to you; you leave our part to us." Otherwise how are you going to negotiate? For what? You are not giving anything, you are just asking for something. For forty years continuously India has been asking, "The part you have taken should be returned." But rather than returning it they have made it, constitutionally, part of Kashmir. Now it is not an invaded part, now it is an essential part of Kashmir. And the Indian leaders have been silent; nobody has even objected.
General Chaudhuri was phoning continually to say, "Allow me to go ahead." But Jawaharlal Nehru and his cabinet could not decide; they said, "You have to wait until sunrise." And you will be surprised to know that if he had waited until sunrise the whole of Kashmir would have gone into the hands of Pakistan.
He did not wait -- he was a real, courageous man -- but they delayed him so much that he started attacking just nearabout when the sun was going to rise, without the orders from the prime minister. It was through his courage that Pakistan could take only a small part -- but the most beautiful part, and the most significant part as far as military science is concerned, because that small part allows Pakistan to be joined with China. That small part is so significant -- without it the boundaries of China and Pakistan were separate. Pakistan has taken that part, and now China has made a thousands-of-miles-long superhighway, reaching to Lahore. Both are the enemies of India, and now they are connected.
Chaudhuri was insisting, "Allow me.... Forget about that part, because Pakistan is focused on taking it. Let them take it -- don't waste time. Allow me: I will take Lahore, their most important city" -- and it was only fifteen miles away, a few minutes' job. But the cabinet discussed and discussed -- this country is very clever as far as discussing is concerned; for centuries it has been discussing everything, and doing nothing.
As they became aware that Chaudhuri was going to take over Lahore, they stopped him and said, "Without our orders, who are you?" and Chaudhuri was punished, retired before his time. His wife was telling me, "If he had been allowed to take Lahore, we would have had an immediate solution to the problem. Pakistan would not have been ready to lose Lahore, because Lahore joins us with Afghanistan and the Soviet Union."
Chaudhuri was very clear in his conception that they would not take the risk of India becoming joined by road, by railway trains, to the Soviet Union. They would have rather changed and negotiated: "You can take the part we have taken, and you give the part that you have taken."
This country has learned, in two thousand years, to be slaves. So even though forty years of freedom have passed, there is no freedom anywhere -- only in the words of the constitution; otherwise how could the police commissioner have dared to prevent me... and tell me to leave Poona within thirty minutes, on the grounds that I am controversial?
I simply want to know: Has there been anybody in the whole world who was of any significance and not controversial? Was Jesus not controversial? If he had remained just with his father in his carpentry, I don't think people would have crucified him. They did not crucify his father.
Was Buddha not controversial? But was he ordered by any kingdom...? India was divided into two thousand kingdoms at his time, and he was moving freely from one kingdom into another; not even a visa was asked, not even a passport. And nobody can be more controversial than Gautam Buddha, because he was against the VEDAS, which are the base of the Hindu religion. He was against the brahmins, who are the priests and the lawgivers of Hinduism. Still nobody prevented him just because he was controversial.
It seems we have become such slaves in our minds that we have written a constitution which is simply a copy of all the best constitutions of the world; we have chosen fragments from here and there. Whenever I think of the Indian constitution I always, without exception, remember a small story: It was Darwin's birthday, and the children of his neighborhood wanted to present him with something, because he was the most famous man, and of course the most controversial man, of his time. He was very friendly with children and used to play with them; they were all his friends.
For his birthday, they were thinking about what to present him. Because his single-minded interest was to know about animals, birds, how life has arisen, why life has taken so many forms, what the children did was -- children are very intelligent before they are corrupted by their elders -- they gathered a few insects and cut pieces from them: wings from one, legs from another, a body from the third, a head from the fourth -- from different insects -- and they glued them and made a new insect. They waited to see whether Charles Darwin, the greatest expert on insects and animals and birds, could even say what kind of insect this was.
They were very much excited, and in the evening they brought it to him. Even Darwin could not figure it out. He had seen... over his whole life he had been around the world. But these little children of his neighborhood, where had they found such an original insect? Then he looked closely -- he was getting old -- and he said, "Bring my glasses... because I have never seen such an insect."
And when he put on his glasses, the children said, "Now tell us the name of the insect."
He said, "This is a humbug!"
The Indian constitution is a humbug: something from the Soviet constitution, something from the American constitution, most of the English constitution, and from every other country whatever they could find which is good, sounds good -- freedom of the individual, no discrimination, freedom of expression, government by the people of the people for the people. Everything is borrowed. It looks good when you read it, but it is not applicable.
Because I am controversial I should leave Poona within thirty minutes. Where should I go? -- because I will be controversial wherever I am! And if to be controversial is a crime, then there is no place for me anywhere in my own country, which goes on bragging to the whole world that this is the greatest democracy.
This is the freedom for which my whole family fought, went to jail, suffered. And because all the elders of the family were suffering, only women were left in the house; the business was closed. We were children, small children, and we were suffering because there was even no money to pay the school fee. And this is the freedom for which not only my family, but thousands of families, suffered, thousands of people died.
And they were all controversial people.... Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Dr. Ambedkar -- they were all controversial people. If you have even a little intelligence you are bound to be controversial. Only in the armies is your intelligence crushed and destroyed so that you cannot say no, even if you see something is wrong. You have been trained to say yes in every condition.
Source - Osho Book "The Messiah, Vol2"