Indira Gandhi Quotes (1917-1984)

“The prime minister sliced into Pakistan, which, she declared, based its existence on stoking hostility to India. Pakistan had long felt that it would get U.S. support no matter what it did, encouraging Pakistani “adventurism and Indophobia.” She complained that Pakistan turned every issue into a clash between Hindus and Muslims: “Indophobia was clothed in the metaphysics of holy wars and the defence of Islam.””

“There are moments in history when brooding tragedy and its dark shadows can be lightened by recalling great moments of the past.”

“My grandfather once told me that there were two kinds of people: those who do the work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was much less competition.”

“I’m not for nationalization because of the rhetoric of nationalization, or because I see in nationalization the cure-all for every injustice. I’m for nationalization in cases where it’s necessary.”

““We were not able to capture even 10 per cent of the RSS workers. They all have gone underground and the RSS did not disperse even after the ban, on the contrary it was striking roots in new areas like Kerala”.”

“We make no discrimination against the adherent of any religion. All faiths are entitled to equal protection and equal respect. This we have named "Secularism", which entitles each Indian to pursue his own belief and learn more about his own creed. But it also requires him to extend the same right to persons of other religions.”

“Look, I don’t see the world as something divided between right and left. And I don’t at all care who’s on the right or left or in the center. Even though we use them, even though I use them myself, these expressions have lost all meaning. I’m not interested in one label or the other—I’m only interested in solving certain problems, in getting where I want to go. I have certain objectives.”

“Look, I don’t see the world as something divided between right and left. And I don’t at all care who’s on the right or left or in the center. Even though we use them, even though I use them myself, these expressions have lost all meaning. I’m not interested in one label or the other—I’m only interested in solving certain problems, in getting where I want to go. I have certain objectives.”

“Yes, it’s true. It’s true that Joan of Arc was my dream as a little girl. I discovered her toward the age of ten or twelve, when I went to France. I don’t remember where I read about her, but I recall that she immediately took on a definite importance for me. I wanted to sacrifice my life for my country. It seems like foolishness and yet ... what happens when we’re children is engraved forever in our lives.”

“The honour has gone to a veteran soldier in the flight of freedom, and a man of the people. He is a man of humble origin but his achievements are impressive. Through unflinching devotion to the cause of freedom and development, and readiness to suffer for it, he has won the people’s trust. being so close to the soil and with his understanding of the weaker people's problems, and robust common sense, the President elect can be depended upon to serve the constitution with earnestness and dignity.”

“A man of high principles, he worked for the country long and loyally, adding lustre to our traditions of tolerance and selfless service. A devout Muslim, he personified compassion and humanity which are the core of all religions and was thus an illustrious symbol of our secularism. He labored with utter devotion for the uplift of his state and soon his field of work expanded to embrace the entire country. He dealt with every issue with patience, calm and a sense of fairplay. In many delicate international missions which he undertook on behalf of the Government, his earnestness and dignity enhanced India’s prestige.”

“The truth is that I spoke clearly to Mr. Nixon [about the situation of the Bangladesh Liberation war]... I told him without mincing words that we couldn't go on with ten million refugees on our backs, we couldn't tolerate the fuse of such and explosive situation any longer. Well, Mr. Heath, Mr. Pompidou, and Mr. Brandt had understood very well. But not Mr. Nixon. The fact is that when the others understand one thing, Mr. Nixon understands another. I suspected he was very pro-Pakistan. Or rather I knew that the Americans had always been in favor of Pakistan—not so much because they were in favor of Pakistan, but because they were against India.”

“No one in our national life symbolized so well a national units as he [Dr Zakir Huassin] who had said “The whole of India is my home and all its citizens are his family”...He stood as symbol of multiculturalism. He raised the standard of public life by his word and deed. He was the last member of the generation that had not attained greatness simply on account of their contribution to the freedom struggle. Rather, he was one of those who had achieved greatness by dedicating himself to noble ideals. He was not a mere follower. Rather, he was a pioneer, full of new and creative ideas. He firmly believed that we are inheritors of our best tradition and glorious achievements. Beauty in all its splendor and charm was embodied in him.”

“India had barely become independent, in 1947, when Pakistan invaded Kashmir, which at the time was ruled by a maharajah. The mahara­jah fled, and the people of Kashmir, led by Sheikh Abdullah, asked for Indian help. Lord Mountbatten, who was still governor general, replied that he wouldn’t be able to supply aid to Kashmir unless Pakistan declared war, and he didn’t seem bothered by the fact that the Pakistanis were slaughtering the population. So our leaders decided to sign a document by which they bound themselves to go to war with Pakistan. And Mahatma Gandhi, apostle of nonviolence, signed along with them. Yes, he chose war. He said there was noth­ing else to do. War is inevitable when one must defend somebody or defend oneself.”

“India had barely become independent, in 1947, when Pakistan invaded Kashmir, which at the time was ruled by a maharajah. The mahara­jah fled, and the people of Kashmir, led by Sheikh Abdullah, asked for Indian help. Lord Mountbatten, who was still governor general, replied that he wouldn’t be able to supply aid to Kashmir unless Pakistan declared war, and he didn’t seem bothered by the fact that the Pakistanis were slaughtering the population. So our leaders decided to sign a document by which they bound themselves to go to war with Pakistan. And Mahatma Gandhi, apostle of nonviolence, signed along with them. Yes, he chose war. He said there was noth­ing else to do. War is inevitable when one must defend somebody or defend oneself.”

“Some months ago when I was at Metheran, Masi [aunt] wrote saying that she had heard from some Parsis that it was written in their ancient book that a Hindu of high family would marry into a Parsi family [here, a 'Hindu of high family' is Indira and 'Parsi' is Firoz, son of sunni Nawab Khan] and their son would do great things - religious reform and so on. Masi asked me to inquire into the matter but it quite slipped my mind. Last evening my mother in law [meaning Nawab Khan's so called Parsi wife, converted to islam at the time of her nikaah] came in a state of great excitement. She had also heard something of the sort, a slightly different version. According to her, the son was the reincarnation of the Shah Behram of Persia. Baby's [meaning Rajiv Gandhi's] patri [horoscope] has arrived. I am enclosing it. It is written in Gujarati but I suppose you will be able to get it read. I am enclosing an English translation of the jyotishi's remarks. I am sending all this registered - please do the same when you return it. The good thing about it is supposed to be that there are five planets in one house.”

“Before Washington, Indira Gandhi stopped in New York, where she dazzled Hannah Arendt, herself a longtime critic of British rule in India. The political theorist breathlessly described Gandhi as “very good-looking, almost beautiful, very charming, flirting with every man in the room, without chichi, and entirely calm—she must have known already that she was going to make war and probably enjoyed it even in a perverse way. The toughness of these women once they have got what they wanted is really something!””

“Mrs. Gandhi has only one dream: to take over the whole subcontinent, to subjugate us... I don’t even respect her. To me she’s a mediocre woman with a mediocre intelligence. There’s nothing great about her; only the country she governs is great. I mean, it’s the throne that makes her seem tall, though actually she is very small. And also the name she bears. Believe me, if she was prime minister of Ceylon, she’d be nothing but another Mrs. Bandaranaike [who] got there by the simple fact of being Bandaranaike’s widow, and Mrs Gandhi by the simple fact of being Nehru’s daughter.”

“The unceremonious exit of Mr. M.C. Chagla from her Cabinet and the relaxation of the rule prohibiting polygamy among Muslim employees of the Central Government are but two examples of the concessions she [Indira Gandhi] is making to Muslim communalism.”

“In the end, Indira Gandhi has earned her name as a great martyr on the doorsteps of history. With her courage and efficiency, she demonstrated that only she understood the realities of our corrupt and divided society and was capable of uniting the country dominated by rotten politics. She was a great woman and in her valiant death, she has become greater.”

“Indira Gandhi was the least egotistical great statesman I ever met. She hardly ever talked about herself; she could reduce all personal questions to a proper perspective. She was much more interested in the great political questions: the way the world was going, how the unity of her beloved India could be preserved, how the poverty of her people could be broken, how nuclear annihilation could be averted.”

“Billy Graham details his 1972 trip to India and his meeting with Indira Gandhi during that trip in his autobiography. About his mandate to meet Indira Gandhi, Graham writes: President Nixon, at the request of the American consul in New Delhi, had personally asked me to seek an interview with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in part to find out from her what kind of ambassador she wanted from America. He asked me to notice every single thing about her—the movement of her hands, the expression on her face, how her eyes looked. “When you’ve finished the interview,” he said to me, “go to the American embassy and dictate your report to me.” And so, when I visited with Mrs. Gandhi in the Indian capital, I put the question to her. She told me she wanted someone who understood economics, who had the ear of the President, and who had influence in Congress. This I reported to the President. He later appointed Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Whether my report influenced the President’s decision, I never learned.”

“The future patroness of compulsory sterilization had become, in the meantime, head of the government.”

“She was a woman of immense stature whose life was full of turmoil, challenge and great achievement. From the age of 12, when she joined the non-co-operation movement, her whole life was given to securing the emancipation of her country, first in the struggle for independence and then in the even more monumental task of economic and political development. Mrs. Gandhi knew, in the words of her friend, Aneurin Bevan, that political liberty is the by-product of economic sufficiency. In that knowledge she fought a lifelong contest against poverty and against war, the bringer of poverty. For nearly 20 years...Indira Gandhi was the most important figure in that country. Throughout that time the principles that guided her were devotion to the maintenance of parliamentary democracy and determination to produce tolerance and common purpose out of the diversity and distinctiveness of the peoples of India.”

“The question before us is not whether Indira Gandhi should continue to be prime minister or not. The point is whether democracy in this country is to survive or not. The democratic structure stands on three pillars, namely a strong opposition, independent judiciary and free press. Emergency has destroyed all these essentials.”

“She [Mrs Gandhi] has still today overwhelming support in the country. I believe the prime minister of India will continue in office until the electorate of India decides otherwise.”

“In keeping with the great secrecy involved in India's efforts to develop and test its first nuclear explosive device, the project employed no more than 75 scientists and engineers working on it in the period from 1967 to 1974. Of course this does not count the thousands of individuals required to build and operate the infrastructure supporting BARC and to produce the plutonium for the device. Outside of those actually working on the project, only about three other people in India knew of it - Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, her trusted adviser and former principal secretary P.N. Haksar, and her current principal secretary D.P. Dhar. No government ministers, including the Defense Minister, were informed. The implosion system was designed to compress the core to twice its normal density. The lenses that were developed used the fast-slow explosive design pioneered by the U.S. in World War II. Like the Gadget exploded at Trinity in 1945, they used an RDX-TNT mixture as the fast explosive, with baratol (barium nitrate and TNT) used as the slow explosive. Chengappa describes the inner slow explosive component as being in the shape of "Shiva ling am" -- a phallus in Hindu religious art which is squat and blunt in form. The device used 12 lens, which is described by Chengappa [pg. 182]: "the way the explosives were placed around the plutonium sphere resembled the petals of the lotus". This presumably indicates that each hemisphere of the implosion system consisted of 6 longitudinal lens segments (asymmetric diamond shaped lenses) joined together at the pole so that they formed triangular teeth at the equator which interlocked with the opposite hemisphere. This design is simpler and less sophisticated than the 32-lens "soccer ball" system developed by the U.S. during World War II.”

“We should remember that she probably lost her life in defending the unity of her country, that most precious asset, with its democracy. We should also remember that perhaps her greatest legacy is that she hands to her son a united and democratic country.”

“This despicable act has robbed India of a great and courageous leader. Daughter of Pandit Nehru, one of the pioneers of India's independence, she led her country for a total of 16 years as Prime Minister, a period which saw India's emergence as an industrial power as well as a major influence in world affairs. Her death has also robbed the Commonwealth of a statesman of outstanding stature and experience.”