The major struggle in India today, in the elections or elsewhere, is between the Congress, as representing a non-communal and secular State, and comm… - Jawaharlal Nehru

Life is too complicated and, as far as we can understand it in our present state of knowledge, too illogical, for it to be confined within the four corners of a fixed doctrine. The

I have received a large number of letters stating that the Bihar Government had refused to indulge in firing and that it was only when I insisted upon it that this was agreed to. Some people imagine that I really took part in the firing. It is also usually stated that the casualties were very great. No doubt, you must have received many such communications, and the newspapers have also written much to this effect.” ... “It does not seem to be realised by people that there is a vast difference between my going to Noakhali and my going to Patna. I went to Patna to meet old colleagues and discuss the situation with them and I stayed on at the request of those colleagues. It was not the Central Government inter-vening or overruling you. I couldn’t go in that capacity to Noakhali... .As for the firing, so far as I know, it was on a limited scale and, considering all that had happened, this firing was obviously not in excess of the situation. Indeed it erred on the other side. I was told that the total casualties would in no event exceed 250. That figure is by no means a big one considering everything.... If you agree with me, I suggest that a brief statement might be issued contradicting the report that the Bihar Government had refused to order firing and that I had personally ordered it. You could say that this and other reports are entirely unfounded and that your Government had asked for the military as early as 31st October and when they actually came they were given full discretion to meet the situation. As for me I stayed there at your invitation and I did not interfere in any way with your work or decisions. As for the firing I had nothing to do with it.”

Aurobindo Ghose writes somewhere of the present as 'the pure and virgin moment,' that razor's edge of time and existence which divides the past from the future, and is, and yet, instantaneously is not. The phrase is attractive and yet what does it mean? The virgin moment emerging from the veil of the future in all its naked purity, coming into contact with us, and immediately becoming the soiled and stale past. Is it we that soil it and violate it? Or is the moment not so virgin after all, for it is bound up with all the harlotry of the past?