11-22-2005, 07:06 AM
Man who created a ISLAMIC RASHTRA & an confused nation called India
He stopped Hindu Rashtra, true. But the question is will that be true for ever. "NO", the greeks, aran invanders (muslims), british all made the same mistake.
By 2025-2050 the Hindu Rashtra will be back. Nehru's philosphy and his stature as a great leader are all going downhill.
By 2030, he will be remebered as "The man who created Islamic Rashtra" (Pakistan) so that he could be the PM and creaor of a great plitical mess in India.
We the Hindus, the arayans, the race invincible, will reclaim from the worl our original status. The time has come!
Jai Hindurashtra, Jai Bharat Varsha
Posted by: Raj, United States, 21-11-2005 at 2133 hours IST
â¢
Mohammed Abdul Aleem : do u wish the same for saudi Arabia
Mohammed Abdul Aleem, a simple question: will you give the same three cheers to a person who will reccomend secular democratic state in Saudi Arabia and other muslim theocracies as well with the same enthusiasm you are giving to Nehru who established a semi Muslim state in Hindu majority India
Do you honestly paray to Allah to wish all muslim nations get eliminate dfrom the face of the earth and secular democracies be established in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Malayasia , Pakistan etc.
If not then you are a hypocrat and a party in destrying the civilisation of Indian origin.
Think about it and respond please?
Posted by: Man Singh, Canada, 21-11-2005 at 2114 hours IST
â¢
plural society and india
well,mr nariman,yes indeed nehru cocieved of a plural and secular society to shape a unity in diversity.indeed it was really so in the first decade of independence.but over the years later this has been taken to mean a free for all for all other communities other than hindus and an appeasment of minorities and denial of even legitimate opportunities to hinduism s growth and development.one wonders whether in the context of the present practise of what was nobly coceived as a true seclar and plural society this decision was even correct one
your analysis further in this regard would have been more appropriate also for the topic undre mention/ramachandran v n/usa
Posted by: ramachandran v n , India, 21-11-2005 at 1950 hours IST
â¢
Good apples are bad apples - bad apples are good apples
It is delightful to read prominent personality like Mr Fali S. Nariman. I am certainly a big admirer of Mr Nehru and of course the democracy.
These two lines in the article do hold me to think a bit:
-- "It (Indian democracy) worked â and worked well for the first 19 years after Independence. What has happened since then?"
Then it answers:
-- "I think the answer lies in this - it ceased to work well the moment politics in this country became immoral and unprincipled."
I am just wondering, didn't these later years came out of the same '19 years'? It means those '19 years' might be very good in them themselves, but they were not good seeds.
Some time I think we might have degraded our democracy right then when Mahatma Gandhi vetoed overwhelming majority and preferred Nehru over Patel, or then when Mr Nehru installed "Gungi Gudia" Indira as president of Congress ....... well just a thought ......
Posted by: Santosh Gairola, Taiwan, 21-11-2005 at 1910 hours IST
â¢
The folly is harming our future
We and our children are bearing the brunt of this decision. The decision was taken with Pakistan being formed cutting two flanks of India. The author wants us to believe Hindutva should not be confined to a nation, but in 1947 that was the exact scenario. After disposing Subhash Bose and Shyamaprasad Mookerjee there was nobody stopping Nehru.
Posted by: Anindya Chatterjee, United Arab Emirates, 21-11-2005 at 1757 hours IST
â¢
Hindu rashtra
An article worth reading repeatedly! Nehru's vision of India is really great and reveals his vision. Unfortunately his followers in the Congress party have no such vision. Their narrow and parochial mindedness has landed us in a mess from which even Nehru,if he comes alive, will not be able to extricate us. But one nagging doubt persist in my mind- why did he agree for the partition of this country on religious consideration? Some say that because of him the partition took place.
In the name of secularism, appesement of the minority is going on. Reservation for minorities is sought even in IITs and IIMs! Even after 55 years of Independance, we don't have a uniform civil code. One Muslim body in MP refused to accept the verdict in civil case because the judge who prononced the judgement was not a muslim! In retrospect if one comes to a conclusion that Hindu Rashtra was a better option as Hinduism is a way of life, he should not be faulted. What was valid at nehru's time need not necessarily valid today! Jaihind!
Posted by: Balasundaram, India, 21-11-2005 at 1742 hours IST
â¢
NEHRU THE CASANOVA and DESTROYER of HINDUISM.
Mr. FALI NARIMAN, is a Respectable Person But a "REFUGEE" who were Driven Out from Their "HOMELAND" By MUSLIM INvaders,
NEHRU was a INDIAN Person But a "BRITISH " at Heart, All His WRONG Doings are Today Being PAID IN HUMAN BLOOD 1). PARTITION 2) U.N. Reference Of KASHMIR,
3). Application of 370 article to Kashmir, 4). Not Making UNIFORM CIVIL CODE, 5). IMplementing RESERVATION Which Is Still ALIVE a DISEASE More Dangerous Than HIV-AIDS, and Last But More DANGEROUS, APPEASEMENT to MUSLIMS In the Name Of MINORITY ( Defination ) all Subsidies to HAJ // MULLAHS // WAQF BOARD, and Muslim Personal LAW Board to Be Set Up.
NEHRU was a GREAT CASANOVA, which was Not Mentioned By The AGeing FALI-NARIMAN.
Posted by: ravi sharma, United Arab Emirates, 21-11-2005 at 1723 hours IST
â¢
Three Cheers
Thank you Mr. Nariman for a nice piece. Three cheers for you. One, for admiring an admirable man, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehur. Two, for your rising to such eminence. Three, for hopefully, your service to some poor, in the need of judicial help. I wish the poor had a reach to people of your eminence.
I hope, God Willing, my thanks & cheers will reach you.
I am an Indian, Jai Hind.
Mohammed Abdul Aleem
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
aaleem6@hotmail.com
Posted by: Mohammed Abdul Aleem, Saudi Arabia, 21-11-2005 at 1713 hours IST
â¢
What a gross injustice ...
The Benthamite principle then would introduce marginalisation of the extreme forms, because the greatest number always becomes the most privileged, and those who possess the least always suffers. The greatest numbers while reaping all the benefits would also pass on their costs to the least numbers, who, denied any kind of privileges would now also have to bear the costs of the majority. This is a situation that has a certain amount of riot-readiness already built-in. In the event of a riot, everyone suffers. A better option would be to reserve minimum facilities for those who enjoy maximum privileges.
Posted by: CK Raju, Thrissur, India, 21-11-2005 at 1620 hours IST
â¢
Man who stopped Hindu Rashtra
Yes Nehru was the man who stopped Hindu Rashtra now all minorty who lives better than majority community, would praise.
But it is Nehru who has given India a never ending problem of Kashimir - wnet to UN after ememies invaded India's territory, It is Nehru who has given to one more emerging Pakistan within India, Frequent Communal Voilence never seen in any part of the world. A only country where hindus are living like refugee in their own country. A country where Minority community burns 59 innocent train passengers in broad day light and whole mass of leaders then criticise majorities for back clash!
It is Nehru who never solved Babri Mosque problem and let it live for thousands to get killed but putting a lock on it and let idol worship continue!
Capt. Ajay Tripathi
Tokyo
He stopped Hindu Rashtra, true. But the question is will that be true for ever. "NO", the greeks, aran invanders (muslims), british all made the same mistake.
By 2025-2050 the Hindu Rashtra will be back. Nehru's philosphy and his stature as a great leader are all going downhill.
By 2030, he will be remebered as "The man who created Islamic Rashtra" (Pakistan) so that he could be the PM and creaor of a great plitical mess in India.
We the Hindus, the arayans, the race invincible, will reclaim from the worl our original status. The time has come!
Jai Hindurashtra, Jai Bharat Varsha
Posted by: Raj, United States, 21-11-2005 at 2133 hours IST
â¢
Mohammed Abdul Aleem : do u wish the same for saudi Arabia
Mohammed Abdul Aleem, a simple question: will you give the same three cheers to a person who will reccomend secular democratic state in Saudi Arabia and other muslim theocracies as well with the same enthusiasm you are giving to Nehru who established a semi Muslim state in Hindu majority India
Do you honestly paray to Allah to wish all muslim nations get eliminate dfrom the face of the earth and secular democracies be established in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Malayasia , Pakistan etc.
If not then you are a hypocrat and a party in destrying the civilisation of Indian origin.
Think about it and respond please?
Posted by: Man Singh, Canada, 21-11-2005 at 2114 hours IST
â¢
plural society and india
well,mr nariman,yes indeed nehru cocieved of a plural and secular society to shape a unity in diversity.indeed it was really so in the first decade of independence.but over the years later this has been taken to mean a free for all for all other communities other than hindus and an appeasment of minorities and denial of even legitimate opportunities to hinduism s growth and development.one wonders whether in the context of the present practise of what was nobly coceived as a true seclar and plural society this decision was even correct one
your analysis further in this regard would have been more appropriate also for the topic undre mention/ramachandran v n/usa
Posted by: ramachandran v n , India, 21-11-2005 at 1950 hours IST
â¢
Good apples are bad apples - bad apples are good apples
It is delightful to read prominent personality like Mr Fali S. Nariman. I am certainly a big admirer of Mr Nehru and of course the democracy.
These two lines in the article do hold me to think a bit:
-- "It (Indian democracy) worked â and worked well for the first 19 years after Independence. What has happened since then?"
Then it answers:
-- "I think the answer lies in this - it ceased to work well the moment politics in this country became immoral and unprincipled."
I am just wondering, didn't these later years came out of the same '19 years'? It means those '19 years' might be very good in them themselves, but they were not good seeds.
Some time I think we might have degraded our democracy right then when Mahatma Gandhi vetoed overwhelming majority and preferred Nehru over Patel, or then when Mr Nehru installed "Gungi Gudia" Indira as president of Congress ....... well just a thought ......
Posted by: Santosh Gairola, Taiwan, 21-11-2005 at 1910 hours IST
â¢
The folly is harming our future
We and our children are bearing the brunt of this decision. The decision was taken with Pakistan being formed cutting two flanks of India. The author wants us to believe Hindutva should not be confined to a nation, but in 1947 that was the exact scenario. After disposing Subhash Bose and Shyamaprasad Mookerjee there was nobody stopping Nehru.
Posted by: Anindya Chatterjee, United Arab Emirates, 21-11-2005 at 1757 hours IST
â¢
Hindu rashtra
An article worth reading repeatedly! Nehru's vision of India is really great and reveals his vision. Unfortunately his followers in the Congress party have no such vision. Their narrow and parochial mindedness has landed us in a mess from which even Nehru,if he comes alive, will not be able to extricate us. But one nagging doubt persist in my mind- why did he agree for the partition of this country on religious consideration? Some say that because of him the partition took place.
In the name of secularism, appesement of the minority is going on. Reservation for minorities is sought even in IITs and IIMs! Even after 55 years of Independance, we don't have a uniform civil code. One Muslim body in MP refused to accept the verdict in civil case because the judge who prononced the judgement was not a muslim! In retrospect if one comes to a conclusion that Hindu Rashtra was a better option as Hinduism is a way of life, he should not be faulted. What was valid at nehru's time need not necessarily valid today! Jaihind!
Posted by: Balasundaram, India, 21-11-2005 at 1742 hours IST
â¢
NEHRU THE CASANOVA and DESTROYER of HINDUISM.
Mr. FALI NARIMAN, is a Respectable Person But a "REFUGEE" who were Driven Out from Their "HOMELAND" By MUSLIM INvaders,
NEHRU was a INDIAN Person But a "BRITISH " at Heart, All His WRONG Doings are Today Being PAID IN HUMAN BLOOD 1). PARTITION 2) U.N. Reference Of KASHMIR,
3). Application of 370 article to Kashmir, 4). Not Making UNIFORM CIVIL CODE, 5). IMplementing RESERVATION Which Is Still ALIVE a DISEASE More Dangerous Than HIV-AIDS, and Last But More DANGEROUS, APPEASEMENT to MUSLIMS In the Name Of MINORITY ( Defination ) all Subsidies to HAJ // MULLAHS // WAQF BOARD, and Muslim Personal LAW Board to Be Set Up.
NEHRU was a GREAT CASANOVA, which was Not Mentioned By The AGeing FALI-NARIMAN.
Posted by: ravi sharma, United Arab Emirates, 21-11-2005 at 1723 hours IST
â¢
Three Cheers
Thank you Mr. Nariman for a nice piece. Three cheers for you. One, for admiring an admirable man, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehur. Two, for your rising to such eminence. Three, for hopefully, your service to some poor, in the need of judicial help. I wish the poor had a reach to people of your eminence.
I hope, God Willing, my thanks & cheers will reach you.
I am an Indian, Jai Hind.
Mohammed Abdul Aleem
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
aaleem6@hotmail.com
Posted by: Mohammed Abdul Aleem, Saudi Arabia, 21-11-2005 at 1713 hours IST
â¢
What a gross injustice ...
The Benthamite principle then would introduce marginalisation of the extreme forms, because the greatest number always becomes the most privileged, and those who possess the least always suffers. The greatest numbers while reaping all the benefits would also pass on their costs to the least numbers, who, denied any kind of privileges would now also have to bear the costs of the majority. This is a situation that has a certain amount of riot-readiness already built-in. In the event of a riot, everyone suffers. A better option would be to reserve minimum facilities for those who enjoy maximum privileges.
Posted by: CK Raju, Thrissur, India, 21-11-2005 at 1620 hours IST
â¢
Man who stopped Hindu Rashtra
Yes Nehru was the man who stopped Hindu Rashtra now all minorty who lives better than majority community, would praise.
But it is Nehru who has given India a never ending problem of Kashimir - wnet to UN after ememies invaded India's territory, It is Nehru who has given to one more emerging Pakistan within India, Frequent Communal Voilence never seen in any part of the world. A only country where hindus are living like refugee in their own country. A country where Minority community burns 59 innocent train passengers in broad day light and whole mass of leaders then criticise majorities for back clash!
It is Nehru who never solved Babri Mosque problem and let it live for thousands to get killed but putting a lock on it and let idol worship continue!
Capt. Ajay Tripathi
Tokyo