Amid Congress Party’s allegations of Prime Minister Narendra Modi making “compromises” regarding the India-US interim trade agreement, BJP MP Sambit Patra gave a sharp reply, turning the criticism towards India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, whom he referred to as the “compromising uncle”.
Speaking at a press conference in New Delhi, Patra alleged that Nehru’s former private secretary, MO Mathai, was described as an “American agent”. He further claimed that during the 1960s, agents of the Soviet intelligence agency, the KGB, were present in the Prime Minister’s Office.
Sambit Patra said, “Today we want to reveal who is the real compromiser. In this context, Nehru’s name comes first in this entire episode. How Nehru compromised and how Nehru’s compromise affected the country… The CIA had such a strong presence in the secretariat of the ‘compromising uncle’ that his special assistant or special secretary, named M.O. Mathai, was called an American agent and in the 1960s, the Russians Agents of the agency KGB were also present in the office of the ‘compromising uncle’.”
According to Patra, both the CIA and the KGB had considerable influence in the Nehru administration, and it was widely believed at the time that sensitive documents were easily accessible to both the United States and the Soviet Union. He questioned why national security was allegedly weakened to such an extent that classified documents could have been exposed to foreign powers.
Sambit Patra further said, “Whether it was M.O. Mathai or the KGB agents, the CIA and the KGB had a stranglehold in Chacha Nehru’s office, and it was said about Nehru’s reign in the 1960s and 1970s that whatever document the foreign administration required was easily available to the US and Russia… That was the situation, an appalling situation. Why was national security made so hollow that the country Were secret documents handed over to foreign hands?
Patra also raised the issue of Gwadar port and claimed that in 1958, the Sultan of Oman had offered to hand over Gwadar to India. He said that Nehru had rejected the offer and argued that Gwadar had since become strategically important to China and Pakistan. According to Patra, India is now suffering the consequences of that decision.
Patra said, “In 1958, the Sultan of Oman proposed to hand over Gwadar Port to India. He said that if India wanted, he would like to hand over Gwadar Port to India. Nehru rejected it saying that India would not take Gwadar Port. Today you can see how strategically important Gwadar Port has become for China and Pakistan. India is suffering the consequences of this agreement of Nehru today.”
Additionally, Patra questioned why Nehru reportedly discussed giving away Indian territory to foreign countries, and asked under what pressure such decisions were taken. He cast doubt on whether there was any external motivation or influence behind these actions, and suggested that the current leadership of the Congress Party should address these issues.
Patra said, “There is one question whose answer is difficult to understand: Why did Nehru talk about gifting Indian lands to foreign countries? Under what pressure was he working and why did he do so? Was there a big reward behind it? Had China and Pakistan bribed Nehru? Was Nehru bribed by China and Pakistan and was that the reason why he gifted Indian lands to these two countries? Are these the questions we should ask the present Congress government? Want?”
In a separate allegation, Patra claimed that social media users have shared posts and reels stating that they have received messages from Congress offices or senior leaders offering monetary incentives ranging from Rs 25,000 to Rs 1.5 lakh for posting content criticizing the AI Impact Summit.
Sambit Patra said, “Reels are also very popular on social media and people are saying through tweets and reels that they have received messages from the Congress office and senior Congress leaders that if they tweet or make a reel against the World Summit, they will be given Rs 25,000, Rs 50,000 or even Rs 1.5 lakh. We are seeing many such examples on social media and these are authentic because the messages have been posted and shown Are.”
