<!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Nov 25 2005, 05:54 PM-->QUOTE(ben_ami @ Nov 25 2005, 05:54 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->let me clarify.
#1
partition was good for india - because in parting with 2 pieces of india, we also partitioned half the camel jockey population out of india.
i do maintain that we should have partitioned a lot mre camel jockeys and a lot less land.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So your position is the opposite of Savarkar, who believed in the concept of Akhand Bharat and yes he knew what was the muslim population of India.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->#2
ambedkar did more than any other indian to restore the dignity of the lower castes and pull india out of the ills of the social injustice that the caste system snowballed into. its because of him that we had someone like Tarun Das as the chairman of FICCI, that we produced a Meghnath Saha, a K R Narayanan and a lot many of other eminent people from the lower castes.
but for him india's human resource wouldnt have been tapped into, to the extent it is. i hope that in another 50 years the contribution of the underpriveledged castes in all walks of life will be as much as that of the upper castes.
too bad that some of the lower castes especially the dalits harbour separatist designs, instead of trying to latch on to the positive discrimination (rightly) handed unto them and joining the mainstream. amdedkar also did a very wise thing by not converting to christianity or islam but buddhism instead. i have no problems with the dalits becomming buddhists, for buddhists arnt millitant like christians.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A view undoubtedly popularized by the infamous writers of our history at JNU ! Please try to know a little bit more on Ambedkar, his fights with Gandhi, his support of british attemts to break hind society and his general collusion with the British to further his own personal and political goals. Arun Shourie's eminent historians will be a good start, I suggest.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->#3
i support non violence too. and yet i am not a moron. and nor was gandhi a moron just cos he supported non violence.
he was a moron cos he supported non-violence as a PLAUSIBLE MEANS TO ACHIEVE INDEPENDENCE.
non-violence solves social problems, like that of discrimination, be it apartheid in south africa or the rosa parks thing in usa or closer home, the caste system.
but nonviolence and other utopian crap doesnt throw out an enemy who's out to kill your people and economically strangle your nation. non-violence is not the way to stop huns, turks, mongols or germanics.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And yet it was this man who was the mass leader of the people. Non-violence was his credence and the people responded. Do you know of any other leader in pre-independence India who commanded the attention of the masses the way he did? Bose, Savarkar, Aurobindo did not even come close.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->and whats is TSP ??
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The State of Pakistan
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->seperate electorate maybe not, but reservations for s.c. in parliament and in govt jobs and education institutes is a move that i support whole heartedly.
the s.t. thingie is a sham though, since the AIT is a hoax. reservations on the masis of religion is a sham too, cos there's no "oppressed" religion in india, save hinduism.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Without gettiig into the politics of reservations, the demand of Ambedkarites in the 1930's was for separate electorates.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->what we need to leaen from is not gandhi's mistakes but the mistakes of the people who followed this gutless person instead of backing sarvarkar and netaji. what we need to learn from is not nehru's mistakes but from the mistakes of the people, especially in the hindi heartland, who show such fanatical devotion to this butthead and even his progeny. there'd never be any gandhi or nehru but for the support the gutless and selfrespectless people of india gave them. thats what we need to work on. as long as indians dont learn to stand up and fight when in mortal danger, as long as indians remain wimps, we will keep having jokers like these as our leaders and not firebrands like a tilak or a netaji or a patel.
[right][snapback]42007[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We need to learn many things and possibly do not need to go too much in the past. E.g: By all accounts the NDA government gave a decent performance in its six years of rule and yet lost the elections in 2004. Why? Hint: The secret lies in knowing the dark realities of our society.
Kaushal,
You believe that Gandhi/Nehrus incarceration was benign and that the INC started as a british plan. What can I say, lucky for them and us (on that count alone) that they had the British and not the mongols as their rulers. As far as the INC being a British plan, I did say they managed this pretty poorly that they lost control of it in a single generation ! The British are not known for such shoddy management of affairs. My response to you is sarcastic becuause I do not find merit in your assertions. I will be more than glad to discuss anything more than what you feel about it. I have never read anywhere that the INC started as a british plan!
#1
partition was good for india - because in parting with 2 pieces of india, we also partitioned half the camel jockey population out of india.
i do maintain that we should have partitioned a lot mre camel jockeys and a lot less land.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So your position is the opposite of Savarkar, who believed in the concept of Akhand Bharat and yes he knew what was the muslim population of India.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->#2
ambedkar did more than any other indian to restore the dignity of the lower castes and pull india out of the ills of the social injustice that the caste system snowballed into. its because of him that we had someone like Tarun Das as the chairman of FICCI, that we produced a Meghnath Saha, a K R Narayanan and a lot many of other eminent people from the lower castes.
but for him india's human resource wouldnt have been tapped into, to the extent it is. i hope that in another 50 years the contribution of the underpriveledged castes in all walks of life will be as much as that of the upper castes.
too bad that some of the lower castes especially the dalits harbour separatist designs, instead of trying to latch on to the positive discrimination (rightly) handed unto them and joining the mainstream. amdedkar also did a very wise thing by not converting to christianity or islam but buddhism instead. i have no problems with the dalits becomming buddhists, for buddhists arnt millitant like christians.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A view undoubtedly popularized by the infamous writers of our history at JNU ! Please try to know a little bit more on Ambedkar, his fights with Gandhi, his support of british attemts to break hind society and his general collusion with the British to further his own personal and political goals. Arun Shourie's eminent historians will be a good start, I suggest.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->#3
i support non violence too. and yet i am not a moron. and nor was gandhi a moron just cos he supported non violence.
he was a moron cos he supported non-violence as a PLAUSIBLE MEANS TO ACHIEVE INDEPENDENCE.
non-violence solves social problems, like that of discrimination, be it apartheid in south africa or the rosa parks thing in usa or closer home, the caste system.
but nonviolence and other utopian crap doesnt throw out an enemy who's out to kill your people and economically strangle your nation. non-violence is not the way to stop huns, turks, mongols or germanics.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And yet it was this man who was the mass leader of the people. Non-violence was his credence and the people responded. Do you know of any other leader in pre-independence India who commanded the attention of the masses the way he did? Bose, Savarkar, Aurobindo did not even come close.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->and whats is TSP ??
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The State of Pakistan
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->seperate electorate maybe not, but reservations for s.c. in parliament and in govt jobs and education institutes is a move that i support whole heartedly.
the s.t. thingie is a sham though, since the AIT is a hoax. reservations on the masis of religion is a sham too, cos there's no "oppressed" religion in india, save hinduism.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Without gettiig into the politics of reservations, the demand of Ambedkarites in the 1930's was for separate electorates.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->what we need to leaen from is not gandhi's mistakes but the mistakes of the people who followed this gutless person instead of backing sarvarkar and netaji. what we need to learn from is not nehru's mistakes but from the mistakes of the people, especially in the hindi heartland, who show such fanatical devotion to this butthead and even his progeny. there'd never be any gandhi or nehru but for the support the gutless and selfrespectless people of india gave them. thats what we need to work on. as long as indians dont learn to stand up and fight when in mortal danger, as long as indians remain wimps, we will keep having jokers like these as our leaders and not firebrands like a tilak or a netaji or a patel.
[right][snapback]42007[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We need to learn many things and possibly do not need to go too much in the past. E.g: By all accounts the NDA government gave a decent performance in its six years of rule and yet lost the elections in 2004. Why? Hint: The secret lies in knowing the dark realities of our society.
Kaushal,
You believe that Gandhi/Nehrus incarceration was benign and that the INC started as a british plan. What can I say, lucky for them and us (on that count alone) that they had the British and not the mongols as their rulers. As far as the INC being a British plan, I did say they managed this pretty poorly that they lost control of it in a single generation ! The British are not known for such shoddy management of affairs. My response to you is sarcastic becuause I do not find merit in your assertions. I will be more than glad to discuss anything more than what you feel about it. I have never read anywhere that the INC started as a british plan!