Assasination Of Mahatma Gandhi

10-12-2006, 05:33 PM

Also important:

QUOTEDr. Mookherjee supported the partition of Bengal in 1946 to prevent the inclusion of its Hindu-majority areas in a Muslim-dominated East Pakistan; he also opposed a failed bid for a united but independent Bengal made in 1947 by Sarat Bose, the brother of Subhas Chandra Bose and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy, a Bengali Muslim politician. He is accused of condoning violence against Muslims and pro-Pakistan activists during the partition riots of 1947.

He wanted the Hindu Mahasabha not to be restricted to Hindus alone or work as apolitical body for the service of masses. Following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by a Hindu fanatic, the Mahasabha was blamed chiefly for the heinous act and became deeply unpopular. Mookerjee himself condemned the murder and left the party.

10-12-2006, 08:13 PM

QUOTE(Capt Manmohan Kumar @ Oct 12 2006, 05:27 PM)<!--emo& Tongue

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> bei-man'why a person of steel like sardar patel should have any respect for a gutless person like gandhi ji is quite beyond me.

also why did netaji step down just cos gandhi went on a hunger strike, is also baffling'.
u pl clear ur cobwebs before calling others confused. ur confusion is bursting at seams.
kalayansarkar
'Now why Netaji would name a brigade for Gandhi. Netaji was a great opportunitist and strategist, and very well knew how to use all propoganda to generate mass support. He even appeased muslims to bring them into INA! He had no objections to allying with either the Hitler, or Stalin! So he know what he wanted, and did not let the means limit him in acheiving the goals.'
The main thing is Gandhi is acknowledged as gr8man from India and I don't lose anything standing behind Gandhi; rather my stature is increased. Here is how:
Houston city council led by Mayor celebrated Mahatma Gandhi's B'day publically this year. I think it gives Indians recognition.
[right][snapback]58969[/snapback][/right]

a "Jayashree" from our own army !!

10-12-2006, 08:16 PM

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Oct 12 2006, 05:25 PM)Although the ID card rule was revoked owing to his efforts, he died as detenu on May 23, 1953 under mysterious circumstances. His death in custody raised wide suspicion across the country and demands for independent enquiry, including earnest requests from his mother to the then Prime Minister of India. Unfortunatley no enquiry commission was set up and his death remains a mystery.



another Bengali victim of Nehuriviam Stalinism ??

10-12-2006, 08:28 PM

<!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> It was Gurudev Rabindra Nath Tagore who titled Gandhi w/ 'Mahatma'.
Gandhi's gr8est quality was 'sense of humour'.
Brits entered India thru Bengal and even named it as 'East India co.'. I leave it to u to draw ur own conclusions. There is not going to come out anything out of war of attrition. Look towards Gandhi who united Indians in the freedom struggle of India and following his footsteps:
Let us unite all Indians.

10-12-2006, 08:30 PM

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Oct 12 2006, 10:46 AM)another Bengali victim of Nehuriviam Stalinism ??
[right][snapback]58978[/snapback][/right]

Well...I would rather not use adjective Bengali. victim list includes many non bengalis too (Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Lal Bahadur Shastri to boot).

10-13-2006, 12:45 AM

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Oct 12 2006, 08:30 PM)<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ben_ami @ Oct 12 2006, 10:46 AM)another Bengali victim of Nehuriviam Stalinism ??
[right][snapback]58978[/snapback][/right]

Well...I would rather not use adjective Bengali. victim list includes many non bengalis too (Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Lal Bahadur Shastri to boot).
[right][snapback]58980[/snapback][/right]
</div>
i never said non-bengalis werent amongst Nehru's victims.

Sardar patel and Sarvarkar are prime examples.

10-13-2006, 12:47 AM

QUOTE(Capt Manmohan Kumar @ Oct 12 2006, 08:28 PM)<!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> It was Gurudev Rabindra Nath Tagore who titled Gandhi w/ 'Mahatma'.
Gandhi's gr8est quality was 'sense of humour'.

[right][snapback]58979[/snapback][/right]


on the strength of the fact that Tagore called a wimp such as gandhi a "mahatma", i am forced to submit that, perhaps the greatest of TAGORE's many gifts was his "sense of humour" !!

10-13-2006, 12:59 AM

QUOTE(Capt Manmohan Kumar @ Oct 12 2006, 08:28 PM)
Brits entered India thru Bengal and even named it as 'East India co.'. I leave it to u to draw ur own conclusions. There is not going to come out anything out of war of attrition. Look towards Gandhi who united Indians in the freedom struggle of India and following his footsteps:
Let us unite all Indians.
[right][snapback]58979[/snapback][/right]


brits entered india through a lot of places, not just Bengal. places like Madras and some places in western india had brits before bengal did.

Bengalis were the first to see the british presence as a cultural and military liberation from the grip of islam (bengal had the highest muslim population for any indian state back then). remember when the brits defeated nabab shirajuddlah of bengal there was no attempt by the natives to reinstall him. Quite unlike Oudh, where the removal of the nababs of lucknow resulted in an attempt to reinstall the muslims back in power. an attempt better knoiwn as the mutiny of 57. Bengal started opposing and fighting the the brits (both politically and on the streets) only when they realised that the cultural and millitary liberation had come at the terrible price of economic loot and plunder.

Bengal was the center of most of the european influence on india, as was Delhi the capital of islamic india (in that it was till before "Luyten's delhi" was built, up to its neck in islamic influence)

and since you yopurself say that nothing comes out of a war of attrition, how does gandhi's ahimsha tactics become effective??

also remember Gandhi had minimal fan folowing in maharashtra, punjab and bengal - the three states at the forefront of the independence movement.

oh and btw, "east india company" has nothing to do with the fact that bengal is on the eastern end of india. al of india is called east india to differenciate it from west indiies, the "india" that columbus found on the western side of europe. take such "un-par"/illiterate interpretations somewhere else.

**acharya** · 10-13-2006, 01:17 AM

This forum is for uniting Indians and Hindus.
Please make sure that the post acheive that. No more arguments.

Sunder · (This post was last modified: 10-13-2006, 01:31 AM by Sunder.)

QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 13 2006, 01:17 AM)This forum is for uniting Indians and Hindus.
Please make sure that the post acheive that. No more arguments.
[right][snapback]59000[/snapback][/right]

I completely agree with you Acharya ji. The idea is to unite towards a common goal.

I may not be a fan of Mahatma Gandhi as a politician, but I do have immense respect for him as a person and a National Icon. If I go out and preach non-violence - asking people not to hit back in the face of adversity - I will be pelted with bricks and stones. The Mahatma had the self discipline and the "Atma Balam" to hold sway over masses.

I was very much influenced by his Autobiography - "My Experiments with Truth", and it had it's effect on me for not uttering lies.

10-13-2006, 12:04 PM

Its true that Shyamaprasad Mookerjee was a Minister in the Cabinet formed after the Partition. But immediately after the Partition no election was held to elect the government. The first elections were held only in 1952. The government of India between 1947 and 1952 was formed by Congress led by Nehru, but the Cabinet included a few non-Congress ministers, namely Shyamaprasad Mookerjee. But he never joined the Congress.

10-13-2006, 03:27 PM

Acharya and Sunder,

I understand the "uniting india" bit. But why look up to the person who divided India as the idol/icon of united india??

Nehru was the prime minister of all of india too - so should we look up to him?

10-13-2006, 05:57 PM

QUOTE(kalyansarkar @ Oct 13 2006, 02:34 AM)Its true that Shyamaprasad Mookerjee was a Minister in the Cabinet formed after the Partition. but the Cabinet included a few non-Congress ministers, namely Shyamaprasad Mookerjee. But he never joined the Congress.
[right][snapback]59028[/snapback][/right]


Dr Mookerjee even contested the election for the provincial government of Bengal on a Congress ticket, pre-independence. He then resigned, like all other elected members, and contested again as independent candidate. He then joined Hindu Mahasabha, and continued until the assassination of Gandhiji, when he resigned from Mahasabha. He continued in the interim cabinet of Nehru even after quitting Mahasabha until 1949, when he resigned to protest against the muslim appeasement policies of Nehru. You are probably right in saying he was a "non-congress" cabinet minister in Nehru's government. It was the initiative of Sardar Patel to include him in the cabinet. Also, the way Sardar Patel, and Dr. Mookerjee seem to have worked hand in hand, it shows the direction Sardar Patel wanted to drive the mainstream congress into.

However, let us understand, Congress back then was not a "political party", as we understand it to be today. It was a lose and open forum where all political workers can came to, with a variety of agendas and ideologies, but for the goal of attaining India's independence. Even RSS founder Dr. Hedgewar also attended and supported, many of the movements initiated by congress. It is because of this 'all included' natue of congress, is why after independence there was a strong recommendation that congress must be dismantled since the objective of independence has been acheived.

So saying Mookerji was never in conress may not be very accurate in the spirit, although it maybe in the strict sense. Gandhi was also never in congress by that measurement - never a member, never an officer, never contested any election.

10-13-2006, 08:47 PM

Ben,
Saying Gandhiji was a divider is too simplistic a statement. If you think Bose or whoever was a better leader - fine, but no need to deride Gandhi based on superficial understanding of the man or his philoshopy.

Sunder/Capt Kumar: Last night Zee News had a piece on "Gandhigiri" back in fad after the "Lage Raho Munna Bhai" movie. Kids were shown saying how they are going back to basics on issues like self reliance and finding that self confidence. Khadi stores of Delhi which were selling about Rs 1.5 lacs per month are these days selling goods well over Rs 20 lacs per month.

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 10-14-2006, 08:40 PM by acharya.)

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Oct 12 2006, 09:57 PM)
But why look up to the person(GANDHI) who divided India as the idol/icon of united india??
Nehru was the prime minister of all of india too - so should we look up to him?
[right][snapback]59030[/snapback][/right]

All of them are product of their times. They took the country from what they had experienced to remove the British from the country.
Indian independence was acheived with British playing Machiavelli politics putting Jinnah vs Nehru. They secretly supported Jinnah and ML on the side lines when independence negotiation was going on.

Both Gandhi and Nehru were pawns in the bigger game. I think after 60 years every Indian has to understand this.

10-13-2006, 09:57 PM

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/furious.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='furious.gif' /> And the history corroborates that as Brits have been telling from house top:
'divide and rule'
and 1st was division of Bengal in 1905 by Lord Curzon.
1 of the famous saying of Gandhi:
'hai apna desh kahan, voh basa hamare gaon mein/India lives in it's villages'.
If Indians would have followed only this saying of him, there might not have been farmers' suicides and exodus from villages. Today when Mohd Yunus and his Grameen Bank won the Nobel Peace Prize; it's such kind of things which might have resulted and done nation and Gandhi proud.

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 10-14-2006, 08:45 PM by acharya.)

QUOTEsurinder wrote:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=9&section=0&...&d=9&m=9&y=2006


Now Dr. Israr finds a disturbing portent for the future of Pakistan. âI am worried. The reasons why Pakistan was created (âwajh-e-jawaazâ), its raison dâetre, are being questioned now. This worries me. âWhy Pakistan?â the younger generation keeps asking. It is becoming a chorus now. âWhy did you go for partition?â they ask. âWhat was the reason?â Is that not a worrying factor?â

Dr. Israr elaborated. âThere were two reasons (for the creation of Pakistan) â one positive and one negative. The negative factor was the fear of the Hindu: the Hindu will finish us off; the Hindu will suppress us (âHindu hum ko dabayega,â âHindu hum ko kha jayegaâ... etc., etc.) The Hindu will take revenge. It will finish our culture. It will strangle our language. This was the negative issue that became a rallying cry for the Muslim League. Remember, at this stage the Muslim League was not a party. It was just a club of nawabs and jagirdars. In his address of 1930 in Allahabad (âKhutba-e-Allahabadâ), the legendary poet Iqbal gave an ideological injection to this movement. During the address, Iqbal said: âIt is my conviction that in the north of India an independent Muslim state will be established.â It was a prophesy â not a proposal. Iqbal went on to say: âIf this happens, we will be able to project the true picture of Islam to the world.â This was the positive reason.
When Dr. Israr thinks back to the creation of Pakistan, he marvels over the consensus that formed it. âIt was a miracle. Can there be any bigger stupidity from the political standpoint as to why a UP Muslim should support the Muslim League? It was an emotional atmosphere. Bombay Muslim, Madrasi Muslim, CP (Central Provinces) Muslim â what did they have to do with Pakistan? But they were the real creators of Pakistan. In Punjab, there was never a Muslim League ministry even for one day. It was either in East Pakistan or Sindh. Until the end, it was the Congress ministry in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). The real creators of Pakistan then were the Muslims of the minority provinces. They generated a wave in 1946. It was because of this wave that when the elections took place, they established beyond a shadow of doubt that the Muslim League was the sole representative party of the Muslim community.â

Dr. Israr said that what started right, soon went wrong. âThe creation of Pakistan was a good thing. It was created with good intentions; there was a long historical background to the movement, but we failed badly. There is one quote from Quaid-e-Azam worth remembering: âGod has given us a golden opportunity to prove our worth as architects of a new state, and let it not be said that we didnât prove equal to the task.â Unfortunately, we proved that we were not equal to the task. Where is Pakistan? We divided it into two countries (in 1971). What do we have now? There is no such thing as âqaumâ in Pakistan.

âOnly a miracle can save Pakistan,â Dr. Israr said. âTo me, the creation of Pakistan was in itself a miracle, and I see optimism only in the form of a miracle. In 1946, Quaid-e-Azam had given up on the demand for Pakistan. When you had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan, what did it mean? It meant that the country would remain united for 10 years. There were to be three zones. Yes, after 10 years any zone would have had the option of secession. All this meant that for 10 long years, there was no question of an independent country. It was only after Nehru issued a statement saying âWho lets anybody separate after 10 years?â that is when Quaid-e-Azam got adamant. He took a step back. âAgar yahi niyat hai to ye Cabinet mission plan hamen manzoor nahi haiâ (If these are what your intentions are, then we donât accept this Cabinet Mission Plan). It was Nehru who created Pakistan.



It was Nehru who created Pakistan. (A common Paki refrain. I think this type of statement needs Piskological focus. It seems strange that a Pakis would credit their hated adversary for creating their beloved country. There is a deep down feeling among Pakis that Pakistan was merely a mistake, and Nehru, and all the other Hindus, should be blamed for it. It seems like that girl in the movie Excorcist when she is shouts "Help me.")

There is a funda behind this.
Jinnah and Muslim League ML were working on a escalation ladder with Nehru and congress with the demand for Pakistan. What was the final goal. The goal was to get a large electrorate dominance in the united India Parliament for Muslims in India. The idea was that Nehru and congress would back down in that confrontation and accept a larger influence of Muslims in the legislature of a united India.

But Nehru and Patel made a larger decision based on British influence with the ML and future potential for breakup and chaos in a united India. They also believed that Jinnah would back down later and then ask for merger with India since Indus water and kashmir was still to be resolved. They believed that Pakistan would cease to be proxy for the master after a period of realization. But master used UN and other tricks to keep the game going for 60 years.

This uncertainity of Pakistan is showing up in Israr Ahmed statement in this way.

Bharatvarsh · 10-14-2006, 04:54 PM

QUOTEI understand the "uniting india" bit. But why look up to the person who divided India as the idol/icon of united india??
Where did you get that, Gandhi didn't divide India, Islam divided India, what Gandhi did was to permanently handicap Hindus by going against population exchange and by his appeasement towards Muslims.

One of the main commands a Muslim gets in the Quran is that he/she should not live among kaffirs (unclean) and that they should stay as far away from us as possible, so they created Pakistan for that, it's another matter that majority of those who supported Pakistan are shameless and decided to stay back and foolish Hindus allowed them to.

10-14-2006, 05:56 PM

As Acharya wrote earlier, Gandhi also became a victim of a broader social engineering carried out by Brits. I think Congress party itself was created to lead this social engineering process (SE).

Gandhi was more of a socio/spiritual/reformer kind of leader, should have restricted himself to the social issues only. But he was egged on as part of the SE process to push through the amputation of Bharata.

Nehru used Gandhi's assasination to usurp the power and push through the Agenda of his masters.

One of the reasons could be that no Indian leader gathers enough courage to ask for the compensation and apology for 200 years of slavery and blatant looting by Brits. Frequent rewards to MMS and other Indian public servants are just the part of the SE process which still goes on.

Compare that with Chinese insistence and armtwisiting of Japan for WWII atrocities and how Japanese PM is forced to apologize again and again and also how Japanese businesses are blackmailed into investing billions & zillions in China.

**acharya** · 10-14-2006, 08:38 PM

QUOTE(ben_ami @ Oct 12 2006, 09:57 PM)
But why look up to the person(GANDHI) who divided India as the idol/icon of united india??
Nehru was the prime minister of all of india too - so should we look up to him?



From the Pakistan perspective from the above article on Israr Ahmed we see that
they blame Nehru for the partition. Gandhi was not negotiating with the British govt. British did not want to negotiate with Gandhi since was too powerful and he negotiated under his own terms.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?