11-26-2005, 01:52 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Nov 25 2005, 03:26 PM-->QUOTE(ben_ami @ Nov 25 2005, 03:26 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Shaurya+Nov 26 2005, 12:32 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Shaurya @ Nov 26 2005, 12:32 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Instead of focusing on absolutes like good and bad, it is important to focus on lessons learned from Gandhi's methods. To me they are the following:
1. Appeasement of muslims was a disastrous policy ultimately leading to the partition of the nation
2. Uniting hindu society against the evils of the caste system and the various superstitions and backward practices was as equal a need as freedom itself.
3. Non violence is an ideal, not a method to win political battles. The end justifies the means and not the other way around.
[right][snapback]41998[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes.
point 1>>
appeasement of muslims was disastrous yes.
but partition itself wasnt bad. it allowed india to get rid of a large part of her camel jockey population. what was bad was that millions of those camel jockeys stayed back and to this day are a burden to the nation (which itself is due to the aforementioned appeasement. had the muslims been told that they'd be treated as dogs.... which i regret is NOT a sort of treatment that the muslims are given though they deserve it thorougly, they many more of them would have left for pakistan).
the other bad thing about partition was the size of the chunks given away to the camel jockeys.
pakistan should have been carved in such a way that the river sindhu and the major parts of the swaraswati valley civilization fell in india and not pakistan.
similarly, bangladesh - the MOST fertile piece of land in the whole world, should have been carved in such a way that the camel jockeys got 1/3rd of it whilst we kept 2/3rd of bengal.
but in both cases the opposite happened.
point 2)
uniting hindus against the evils of caste system was important yes. but thats due to ambedkar and sarvarkar to as equal measure as its to gandhi.
btw can some of the experts here supply any proof that the evils of caste system increased during the camel jockey era??
point 3)
yes nonviolence is an ideal and not a method to win political battles.
which is why gandhi was a moron.
he thought it (ie... non violence/ahimsha) was not just a method of winning political battles but also our freedom as well !!!
he failed to see that ahimsha was at best only an ideal with little value in life or death (of the nation/people) situations.
the ends that non-violence achieved are close to nothing, and thus vindicate just how ineffective nonviolence was and how stupid it was not to jave gone for the jugular (ie. break the pom indian army)
[right][snapback]42002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So your position is:
1. Partition was good for India
2. Ambedkar had an equal role to play in uniting hindus of all castes? Which version of history do you read?
3. Since Gandhi supported non-violence he must be a moron
On 1, You should then thank Gandhi that it was due to his appeasement policies, which helped the creation of TSP and the reason why he was killed.
On 2, to, To set the record straight, it was Gandhi who went on a fast to oppose the british government;s idea of separate electorates for the Scheduled Castes. His chief opponent was Ambedkar, who he convinced/compelled that it was not a good idea. Ambedkar, however towards the end did convert to buddhism, after independence.
On 3, Contempt alone will not help us learn from Gandhi. An analysis of his actions in the context of the given environment will allow us to make sure the mistakes are not repeated and the positive elements are retained.
1. Appeasement of muslims was a disastrous policy ultimately leading to the partition of the nation
2. Uniting hindu society against the evils of the caste system and the various superstitions and backward practices was as equal a need as freedom itself.
3. Non violence is an ideal, not a method to win political battles. The end justifies the means and not the other way around.
[right][snapback]41998[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes.
point 1>>
appeasement of muslims was disastrous yes.
but partition itself wasnt bad. it allowed india to get rid of a large part of her camel jockey population. what was bad was that millions of those camel jockeys stayed back and to this day are a burden to the nation (which itself is due to the aforementioned appeasement. had the muslims been told that they'd be treated as dogs.... which i regret is NOT a sort of treatment that the muslims are given though they deserve it thorougly, they many more of them would have left for pakistan).
the other bad thing about partition was the size of the chunks given away to the camel jockeys.
pakistan should have been carved in such a way that the river sindhu and the major parts of the swaraswati valley civilization fell in india and not pakistan.
similarly, bangladesh - the MOST fertile piece of land in the whole world, should have been carved in such a way that the camel jockeys got 1/3rd of it whilst we kept 2/3rd of bengal.
but in both cases the opposite happened.
point 2)
uniting hindus against the evils of caste system was important yes. but thats due to ambedkar and sarvarkar to as equal measure as its to gandhi.
btw can some of the experts here supply any proof that the evils of caste system increased during the camel jockey era??
point 3)
yes nonviolence is an ideal and not a method to win political battles.
which is why gandhi was a moron.
he thought it (ie... non violence/ahimsha) was not just a method of winning political battles but also our freedom as well !!!
he failed to see that ahimsha was at best only an ideal with little value in life or death (of the nation/people) situations.
the ends that non-violence achieved are close to nothing, and thus vindicate just how ineffective nonviolence was and how stupid it was not to jave gone for the jugular (ie. break the pom indian army)
[right][snapback]42002[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So your position is:
1. Partition was good for India
2. Ambedkar had an equal role to play in uniting hindus of all castes? Which version of history do you read?
3. Since Gandhi supported non-violence he must be a moron
On 1, You should then thank Gandhi that it was due to his appeasement policies, which helped the creation of TSP and the reason why he was killed.
On 2, to, To set the record straight, it was Gandhi who went on a fast to oppose the british government;s idea of separate electorates for the Scheduled Castes. His chief opponent was Ambedkar, who he convinced/compelled that it was not a good idea. Ambedkar, however towards the end did convert to buddhism, after independence.
On 3, Contempt alone will not help us learn from Gandhi. An analysis of his actions in the context of the given environment will allow us to make sure the mistakes are not repeated and the positive elements are retained.