I don't think it was right on Dalai Lama's part to come to Goa and make a few controversial references on some historical events. Was there a need for him to call India's first Prime Minister "self centred" just because Nehru did not agree to make Jinnah the Prime Minister? Did Jinnah really command the kind of support within the Congress that Nehru did?
What would have happened if Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) were to be a part of India today? Would India have been a glorious Nation or would we have been a Nation caught constantly in civil war kind of situations? We do not know but can only speculate in hindsight. History has been well documented in black and white. It was not just Nehru but Sardar Patel as well as Congress that opposed Gandhi's suggestion to make Jinnah the PM of a unified India. The majority view was thus not in favour of Jinnah who espoused a communal brand of politics during the latter part of his political career. Many termed it Gandhi's appeasement and rejected it outright. Different people will interpret history differently. In my opinion, had Gandhi's suggestion been upheld, it would have been a "historical blunder". One can only speculate on the outcome. Nonetheless, I think it was wrong on the Tibetan leader's part to make such controversial references. It was Pandit Nehru who during his tenure granted Dalai Lama asylum and he has been allowed be India's honoured guest ever since. He shouldn't have chosen to be critical of the very person who gave him his freedom. Dalai Lama during the course of his speech said that everyone makes mistakes. I agree with him on this. The controversial reference was Dalai Lama's mistake and given his stature and spirituality, we can pardon him for that. regards, Sandeep Heble
