10-02-2008, 02:23 AM
Two x-posts..
<!--QuoteBegin-"sanjaychoudhry"+-->QUOTE("sanjaychoudhry")<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sure you also agree whole-heartedly with the Pakistani propagation that Jinnah was the tallest pre-Independence leader that India produced because he only recognised that Hindus and Muslims were two separate people and hence there was a need for a homeland for Muslims.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, bro, Gandhi himself agreed to divide the country between the two religions. Patel too agreed to the Partition, saying that if a single Pakistan is not created, there will be a 1,000 pakistans within India itself. On hind sight, partition was a good thing, otherwise Indian army would currently have been busy in FATA and Waziristan in worse conditions than Kashmir with no solution in sight to the civilisational fault-lines. <b>Patel urged Gandhi that having agreed to gift away 1/3 of the land, he should now accept population transfer but he was over-ruled by Gandhi. So we ended up losing the land but still retaining most of the Muslims of UP and Bihar who had created a bloodbath in the name of partition. Worse, people who got stuck with Paksitan -- Balochs and Pathans -- never asked for it in the first place!! Abdul Gaffar Khan publicly saying in rallies that "we have been thrown to the wolves."</b>
My grouse with Gandhi is, either accept the two nation theory and agree to full transfer of land and partition, or do not accept the two nation theory and refuse to divide either the land or the people. But he agreed with the two nation theory to the extent of giving away one-third of India's land but did not agree with it to the extent of not allowing full population transfer. Can anything be more stupid? Either go that way or this way. What is this thing of sitting between two stools till your arse hits the ground?
Hindus have never understood the importance of land for a race, even though in Arthashastra, Chanakya defined statecraft as "the art of acquiring and retaining land." So agreeing to one-third of land transfer to Muslims, abandoning Tibet, gifting away Coco Islands to Burma on a whim, abandoning half of Jammu and Kashmir and recalling the victorious army mid-way .... Nehru and Gandhi could never understand this basic principle of statecraft. As a result, the Hindu race lost immense territory. Every 100 years, the boundaries of Hindu home shrinks further. Eventually HIndus will find there is no place left for them to stand on. Contrast this with massive gains in territory made by Whites (American continent, Australia), Muslims (51 countries of the world are officially Islamic) and even China (capture of Tibet, thus doubling the size of the country overnight).
The principle of statecraft is: "You never agree to give your land away. If you do agree eventually, then you extract your pound of flesh from the reciever." What pound of flesh did Nehru extract from China for abandoning Tibet, or for recalling Indian army from Kashmir mid-way? What concessions did Gandhi extract from Jinnah for agreeing to creation of Pakistan? Every thing went for free!! We are liberal only -- free free, everything is for free!!
As for Gandhi's philosophy of "we will give away land but not the people" it reminds me of a story that is often recited in my Haryana village. There was a man who committed a crime. The punishment pronounced by the panchayat was, either be beaten by shoes a hundred times, or eat at one go hundred onions. Choose any of these."
The man chose eating onions. After about 10 onions, his eyes started to water and he said "I cannot take this any more. I think it is better to be beaten with the shoes." After about 10 whacks of the shoe on his backside, he said: "I cannot take this any more. I think it is better to go back to the onions." After eating ten more onions, he again said he would prefer to be beaten by the shoes. The cycle continued. Ultimately, he ended up eating 100 onions as well as being beaten by shoes 100 times.
<b>This is what happened to Hindus when Gandhi did not agree to population transfer but agreed to give away land. This is because after such as huge sacrifice that the Hindu race made in terms of land, they still ended up with the problem not being solved. They had it both ways truly, like the man with onions and shoes.</b>
What you are seeing currently is only a taste of things to come. Police security, busting sleeper cells, CCTVs, arrests .. everything will be useless once the Muslim population reaches about 30 percent. I know where we are heading in about 50 years and what will be logical conclusion of the Muslim radicalism and increase in population, but I don't want to talk about it here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and
<!--QuoteBegin-"surinder"+-->QUOTE("surinder")<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-"sanjaychoudhry"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("sanjaychoudhry")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Agree with this totally. <b>Gandhi and Nehru both had feet of clay. The more I read about them, the more I consider them hollow from inside and full of self-importance. Both lacked the strength of character to rise above their petty likes and dislikes and both were eccentric and failures as family men. Both in their youth wanted to be whiter than the whites and both suffered from a low self-esteem and self-hatred throughout their lives. Both rejected their own people and walked over to the camp of the Muslims and started defending Muslim interests instead of Hindu interests. Both betrayed the millions of Hindus who supported them and made them their leaders.</b>
None of their solutions could stand the test of time. All their "insights" collapsed within three decades of their deaths. <b>And I consider both as products of backroom British support at the cost of nationalists who were hounded brutally</b>.
By not allowing population exchange despite giving away 1/3rd of land and despite Jinnah and Patel pleading with them for a full population transfer, the two gas bags did not budge an inch from their cuckoo land. As representatives of Hindus, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and ensured that 100 years down the line, the third generation of Hindus will face exactly the same issues that was faced by Hindus in 1947.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sanjay C,
Good insight and honest portrayal of Gandhi-Nehru. (also other follow up posts were great reads.) <b>I too cannot shake away the feeling that Gandhi-Nehru were, as you said, "products of backroom British support". Brits knew that in any system you have to allow the people to let off steam. </b> Heck, even Musharraf understood that and let press be free. (He admitted it in an interview accidently.) <b> Gandhi and Nehru represented the best choice. Congres was established by an Englishman, by the way O.E. Hume (if my NCERT/ICSE history classes have not failed me.) The genuince salt-of-the-earth nationalists were severely and brutally treated. Savarkar was sent into a debilitating Kala paani. Lala Lajpat Rai was so brutally beaten by British laathis that he died in a few days. Bhagat Singh, immensely popular was hanged regardless. Nehru and Gandhi were never touched even remotely. Gandhi was a staunch British supporter quite late. Their jail terms were never too severe. Just enough to make the popular amongst Indians, never enough to really punish them. If the British found Nehru/gandhi to be so dangerous, then they could have had "accidents" happen. Even after Tilak had called for "Independence is my Birthright", Gandhi proclaimed his loyalty to the British</b>. Someone had mentioned a quote about Gandhi on Germany, which said that Gandhi had said that had he lived under the Germans he would have taken to guns. It shows a sad reality that Gandhi would not consider fighting the Britis, but Germans, who had done no harm to him or India. That Germans were a threat to British, not to India, seems not to have crossed his mind. That ultimately is the hall mark of Gandhian thinking, fighting distant non-exitent problems and ignoring your own real problems. When great solid men rose, like Subhash C. Bose, they were exiled and forgotten in our manufactured history classes. The INA did not get a single reginement named (what to ask that the whole IA be called INA.) That Bose had managed such dramatic effort and secured the independence of a slice of India (in Andaman Nicobar) before 1947 seems to be deliberately ignored. Other nations would make a million monuments to that brave bold act of securing independence.
The self-delusion of the Gandhi clan is so great that as kids we were made to recite "Dey di azadi bina khadag bina dhaal" ... we were given azaadi by Gandh without bloodshed. It fails to tell us that German blood gave us non-violent Indians our azaadi.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Knowing the contents of the Caroe book by Brobst, did Gandhi give the Brits their Great Game area (TSP) to let the other rest of India to be free?
<!--QuoteBegin-"sanjaychoudhry"+-->QUOTE("sanjaychoudhry")<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sure you also agree whole-heartedly with the Pakistani propagation that Jinnah was the tallest pre-Independence leader that India produced because he only recognised that Hindus and Muslims were two separate people and hence there was a need for a homeland for Muslims.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, bro, Gandhi himself agreed to divide the country between the two religions. Patel too agreed to the Partition, saying that if a single Pakistan is not created, there will be a 1,000 pakistans within India itself. On hind sight, partition was a good thing, otherwise Indian army would currently have been busy in FATA and Waziristan in worse conditions than Kashmir with no solution in sight to the civilisational fault-lines. <b>Patel urged Gandhi that having agreed to gift away 1/3 of the land, he should now accept population transfer but he was over-ruled by Gandhi. So we ended up losing the land but still retaining most of the Muslims of UP and Bihar who had created a bloodbath in the name of partition. Worse, people who got stuck with Paksitan -- Balochs and Pathans -- never asked for it in the first place!! Abdul Gaffar Khan publicly saying in rallies that "we have been thrown to the wolves."</b>
My grouse with Gandhi is, either accept the two nation theory and agree to full transfer of land and partition, or do not accept the two nation theory and refuse to divide either the land or the people. But he agreed with the two nation theory to the extent of giving away one-third of India's land but did not agree with it to the extent of not allowing full population transfer. Can anything be more stupid? Either go that way or this way. What is this thing of sitting between two stools till your arse hits the ground?
Hindus have never understood the importance of land for a race, even though in Arthashastra, Chanakya defined statecraft as "the art of acquiring and retaining land." So agreeing to one-third of land transfer to Muslims, abandoning Tibet, gifting away Coco Islands to Burma on a whim, abandoning half of Jammu and Kashmir and recalling the victorious army mid-way .... Nehru and Gandhi could never understand this basic principle of statecraft. As a result, the Hindu race lost immense territory. Every 100 years, the boundaries of Hindu home shrinks further. Eventually HIndus will find there is no place left for them to stand on. Contrast this with massive gains in territory made by Whites (American continent, Australia), Muslims (51 countries of the world are officially Islamic) and even China (capture of Tibet, thus doubling the size of the country overnight).
The principle of statecraft is: "You never agree to give your land away. If you do agree eventually, then you extract your pound of flesh from the reciever." What pound of flesh did Nehru extract from China for abandoning Tibet, or for recalling Indian army from Kashmir mid-way? What concessions did Gandhi extract from Jinnah for agreeing to creation of Pakistan? Every thing went for free!! We are liberal only -- free free, everything is for free!!
As for Gandhi's philosophy of "we will give away land but not the people" it reminds me of a story that is often recited in my Haryana village. There was a man who committed a crime. The punishment pronounced by the panchayat was, either be beaten by shoes a hundred times, or eat at one go hundred onions. Choose any of these."
The man chose eating onions. After about 10 onions, his eyes started to water and he said "I cannot take this any more. I think it is better to be beaten with the shoes." After about 10 whacks of the shoe on his backside, he said: "I cannot take this any more. I think it is better to go back to the onions." After eating ten more onions, he again said he would prefer to be beaten by the shoes. The cycle continued. Ultimately, he ended up eating 100 onions as well as being beaten by shoes 100 times.
<b>This is what happened to Hindus when Gandhi did not agree to population transfer but agreed to give away land. This is because after such as huge sacrifice that the Hindu race made in terms of land, they still ended up with the problem not being solved. They had it both ways truly, like the man with onions and shoes.</b>
What you are seeing currently is only a taste of things to come. Police security, busting sleeper cells, CCTVs, arrests .. everything will be useless once the Muslim population reaches about 30 percent. I know where we are heading in about 50 years and what will be logical conclusion of the Muslim radicalism and increase in population, but I don't want to talk about it here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and
<!--QuoteBegin-"surinder"+-->QUOTE("surinder")<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-"sanjaychoudhry"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("sanjaychoudhry")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Agree with this totally. <b>Gandhi and Nehru both had feet of clay. The more I read about them, the more I consider them hollow from inside and full of self-importance. Both lacked the strength of character to rise above their petty likes and dislikes and both were eccentric and failures as family men. Both in their youth wanted to be whiter than the whites and both suffered from a low self-esteem and self-hatred throughout their lives. Both rejected their own people and walked over to the camp of the Muslims and started defending Muslim interests instead of Hindu interests. Both betrayed the millions of Hindus who supported them and made them their leaders.</b>
None of their solutions could stand the test of time. All their "insights" collapsed within three decades of their deaths. <b>And I consider both as products of backroom British support at the cost of nationalists who were hounded brutally</b>.
By not allowing population exchange despite giving away 1/3rd of land and despite Jinnah and Patel pleading with them for a full population transfer, the two gas bags did not budge an inch from their cuckoo land. As representatives of Hindus, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and ensured that 100 years down the line, the third generation of Hindus will face exactly the same issues that was faced by Hindus in 1947.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sanjay C,
Good insight and honest portrayal of Gandhi-Nehru. (also other follow up posts were great reads.) <b>I too cannot shake away the feeling that Gandhi-Nehru were, as you said, "products of backroom British support". Brits knew that in any system you have to allow the people to let off steam. </b> Heck, even Musharraf understood that and let press be free. (He admitted it in an interview accidently.) <b> Gandhi and Nehru represented the best choice. Congres was established by an Englishman, by the way O.E. Hume (if my NCERT/ICSE history classes have not failed me.) The genuince salt-of-the-earth nationalists were severely and brutally treated. Savarkar was sent into a debilitating Kala paani. Lala Lajpat Rai was so brutally beaten by British laathis that he died in a few days. Bhagat Singh, immensely popular was hanged regardless. Nehru and Gandhi were never touched even remotely. Gandhi was a staunch British supporter quite late. Their jail terms were never too severe. Just enough to make the popular amongst Indians, never enough to really punish them. If the British found Nehru/gandhi to be so dangerous, then they could have had "accidents" happen. Even after Tilak had called for "Independence is my Birthright", Gandhi proclaimed his loyalty to the British</b>. Someone had mentioned a quote about Gandhi on Germany, which said that Gandhi had said that had he lived under the Germans he would have taken to guns. It shows a sad reality that Gandhi would not consider fighting the Britis, but Germans, who had done no harm to him or India. That Germans were a threat to British, not to India, seems not to have crossed his mind. That ultimately is the hall mark of Gandhian thinking, fighting distant non-exitent problems and ignoring your own real problems. When great solid men rose, like Subhash C. Bose, they were exiled and forgotten in our manufactured history classes. The INA did not get a single reginement named (what to ask that the whole IA be called INA.) That Bose had managed such dramatic effort and secured the independence of a slice of India (in Andaman Nicobar) before 1947 seems to be deliberately ignored. Other nations would make a million monuments to that brave bold act of securing independence.
The self-delusion of the Gandhi clan is so great that as kids we were made to recite "Dey di azadi bina khadag bina dhaal" ... we were given azaadi by Gandh without bloodshed. It fails to tell us that German blood gave us non-violent Indians our azaadi.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Knowing the contents of the Caroe book by Brobst, did Gandhi give the Brits their Great Game area (TSP) to let the other rest of India to be free?