'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

[CC1981]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

Yeah sure ... But only on the previously said Terms else stop yaking and wait till we get there.

???? Eh ? Wait till we get there ? Ke mutlab ? You said Gandhi/Nehru sold us out, i asked okay what should they've done instead. This is about as facking basic 1-2-3 train of logic/debate as it gets. What else do you want ? am i just simply supposed to agree with you without hearing on what you think they should've done instead ?!?

So what was the extent of the Damage caused by Sunga that lead you to bring that topic in while discussing Islamic destruction.

Extent not relevant. A kingdom destroyed or an entire subcontinent destroyed. Same difference really. Besides, my briging up Sunga was to demonstrate that your spiel that hindus dont do that and never do that is in error.

[CC1981]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers arrey baba stop the pedantics..can we get back to the origin of this thread please ? You said Gandhi/Nehru sold us out. I asked you what do you think Gandhi/Nehru should've done. No response from you. As i thought, you aint got the balls or the brains to debate something to the point. Enough feeding the troll (you) from me. So unless you want to answer my simple question, which is a very legitimate one asking you what do you think should've been done since you think what was done is wrong, you aint debating the crux of the matter and i am not interested in one of your convinient and retarded side-track jobs when exposed (yet again) for not having thought the idea through.

[Lurker]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

I dunno what part of Khilafat was good i.e a muslim caliphate that was in essense a fundamentalist movement based on perceived notion that Islam is in danger .. (explained by the phrase "Islam Khatre Mei hai" in many ML meetings / speeches )

Khilafat movement was good because one of the goals was to send the British packing. This was what would attract many an Indians, Hindus and Muslims. The flipside was of course the establishment of Muslim Caliphate and hence it did not receive as much support. The support of Hindus for Muslims was nothing new. In 1857 Hindus had by and large came under the banner of Bahadur Shah Zafar waging "Jihaad" against British.

On August 4, 1920, Mahatma Gandhi had written as follows in his Young India: ?My advice to my Hindu brethren is: Simply help the Mussalmans in their sorrow in a generous and self-sacrificing spirit without counting the cost and you will automatically save the cow? Islam is a noble faith. Trust it and its followers. We must hold it a crime for any Hindu to talk to them about cow-protection or any other help in our religious matters, while the Khilafat struggle is going on.?1 But one day during his 21 days fast in September 1924, he confessed his error to Mahadev Desai in the following words: ?My error? Why, I may be charged with having committed a breach of faith with the Hindus. I asked them to lay their lives and their property at the disposal of the Mussalmans for the protection of their Holy Places. Even to-day I am asking them to practise Ahimsa, to settle quarrels by dying but not by killing. And what do I find to be the result? How many temples have been desecrated? How many sisters came to me with complaints? As I was saying to Hakimji [Ajmal Khan] yesterday, Hindu women are in mortal fear of Mussalman goondas. I had a letter from? How can I bear the way in which his little children were molested? How can I now ask Hindus to put up with everything patiently? I gave the assurance that the friendship with Mussalmans was bound to bear fruit. I asked them to befriend them, regardless of results. It is not in my power to make good that assurance. And yet I must ask the Hindus even to-day to die rather than kill. I can only do so by laying down my own life. I can teach them the way to die by my own example.

See this is dicey now. I do not doubt Mahadev Desai but at the same time I am going to take his words with a pinch of salt. Its one thing to have Gandhi say something, and completely else for someone else to say Gandhi said this to me. Which is why I had said that I have not heard that statement in any of Gandhi's book. A question for you now. You had mentioned Freedom at Midnight. Having read that book can you tell me of who comes out the true hero from the book? Regardless of your criticism of any leader(s) if there was one person that the author(s) showed in glowing light who was it BB? xxx

[Lurker]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

The Guy went ahead and published that book you are saying in a country like ours run by pseudo sec politcians they would take kindly to such sensational writing ? I mean we specialize in the art of burying the uncomfortable and we dig a mile deep just to be sure... sorry I dont buy that. Like wise I can simply say Gandhi did not publish whole story and the complete story in his books.

Now what does one say to that? My argument is rather simple - we can not ascertain a thought to someone(in this case Gandhi) when we can not trace it to him directly. Anything else becomes a heresay.

If you are trying to "sell" Gandhi as a hero then you dont need to ... I understand and acknowledge the greatness of his philosophy.

I am not trying to sell anything. You brought up Gandhi and Nehru in an argument that was completely unattached to them. You brought Gandhi, Modi and Togadia in the same sentence. And you again brought up Gandhi and Freedom at Midnight. So I am only telling you to be forthright and say who is the HERO of the book Freedom of Midnight, as good a book as any you would read on Partition. xxx

[CC1981]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

Provide details of Sungas Genocide and let me know if you figured out the guy Iam talking about in connection with the "julus" post earlier in this thread ... and then we can talk .... I have asked that numerous times before .... No pedantics BTW ... Refer to how me & Lurker are discussing this and follow those rules ... if you cannot adhere to those rules dont bother.

Answer that and then we can progress forward. As i said, ball is in your court, you are the one refusing to answer a simple question from two pages ago. Somehow i knew you wouldnt have the balls to answer a simple question : what do you think Nehru/Gandhi should've done ? Continue with your pedantic diversionary tactics.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers Either tenuous grasp of history or wilful mis-depiction attempt (1) Bahadur Shaha Zafar's acceptance doesn't say Hindu approval of islamic belief like Gandhji's khilafat adventure does. 1857 incident just says a geriatric moghal considered harmless accepted as figure ahead of sepoy revolt which took the complexion of independent movement because few opportunistic leaders like Tatya Tope Kunwar Singh Jhansi Ki Rani's personal interest was involved. Moreover sepoy across religious lines revolted because their respective religious sentiment was bruised. *********** I don't have problem with gandhiji's desperate attempt to woo these fundamentally non-coexistential islamic people but I do have problme with hsi inability to learn from the expereince. He would keep showing sings of utter despair and mouthing words which he did through Young India but would again go back to his ways. May be he never quit on these folks but one thing is sure even at the peak of the movement these ingrates never considered him more than a dirty Kafir. Words of Muhd Ali the stalkwart of Khilafat movement to the effect "Even the worst muslim is better than gandhi in my opinion" is testimony to that fact. **** If you take everything from horse's mouth only then you have a big problem. Because majority of the time history is accoutn of someone through someone. If every leader started writing everything down then they hardly will have time left for anything else. What's next we don't have video footage of so and so mouthing so and so words hence I don't believe it. What of the time when there was no video or radio technology whose word will be taken on face value of that period of history. After all even if one makes some statement someone will be witness and report it they won't be handing out manuscript of their statements for future generation to verify.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

What do you think Gandhi/Nehru should've done ?

Apropos Khilafat simple answer is not participated in Khilafat. Enistein if someone criticises some action doesn't it mean precisely that.

[Lurker]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

Are you saying that Gandhi didnt acknowledge his mistakes and errors ? Keep in mind that the events surrounding that time period add up. And IIRC Freedom at midnight also mentions this aspect of Gandhi (I might be wrong its been ages since I read that book). But if you still insist I can provide other resources to elaborate how Gandhi acknowledged he was dealing with a different beast and what he thought about muslims in general.

Yes I would like to read a direct quote from Gandhi, or something that we can trace to Gandhi directly. Anything else is a heresay.

I think I answered that question ... but i guess you are looking at it from a different perspective than I am ... why dont you tell who the HERO is why you why ....

The HERO of Freedom at Midnight is Gandhi. The authors take a swipe at everyone, from Nehru to Jinnah, shows very clearly what was happening in India right at the dawn of Independence and who was the only voice of sanity who was trying to hold on to one India. I take it you havent read that book recently. Read it if you have some time and you will know what I mean. xxx

[CC1981]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers This is not about Khilafat. The point is,someone is trying to justify the fanaticism of Thackeray and the blood on Modi's hand by simply saying 'if Gandhi/Nehru didnt sell us short, we wouldnt need Modi/Thackeray'. My question is, what should Gandhi/Nehru have done that wouldn't have sold us short ? This is a fairly simple question. Oppose Khilafat doesnt mean squat- i fail to see just how exactly Gandhi/Nehru can be blamed for today's situation with terrorism. Unless you are a fanatic nutter hindu who believes that all muslims should be kicked out of India or they must relinquish their faiths, i don't see what possibly other alternative route existed.

[Lurker]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

Quite unfortunate that you would go down that route too Lurks .... but if you want to be soo picky I can do the same too.... For example what is the Guarantee that Gandhi told the full story in his books and didnt leave out the uncomfortable peices ?

I am sure he left out many pieces. Did he leave it out because they were "uncomfortable" as you say or because he was ignorant? We do not know. What we do know that our own leaders evolved a lot during Independence Movement. For example - Sarojini Naidu publicly glorified Jinnah as the Hindu-Muslim ambassdor around 1920. He was widely called a Secular man and by all accounts at this time(1920) Jinnah was Secular and dispised right wing Muslim parties. But 20 years down the line he had joined the right wing parties and was no longer Secular. This doesnt mean Jinnah was 100% right, or that he was 100% wrong. This does mean that there would have been mistakes on both sides. The relevance of that point is Gandhi was trusting Muslim leaders just like he trusted Hindu leaders. To him there was no difference and surely his actions shows that. So if we suggest he thought otherwise at times(that Muslims were not trustworthy) we need a solid evidence of that, preferably something that can be traced to him directly. Tell me where am I going wrong.

What was the price that was paid and what are the consequences of his actions that we still suffer from ? Has anybody evaluated Gandhi based on those ? I can agree that philosophical he was ahead of everybody but as a Politician trying to secure the interests of his Nation ? I dont think so.

Two points here. Do you agree that Gandhi was indeed the hero of the Freedom at Midnight. Secondly I asked you before about your grievance with Gandhi. Seems like we both forgot that. So now that you mentioned what do you mean by the price that was paid and the consequences of his action? I ask you so I dont assume, and details are always welcome. xxx

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

This is not about Khilafat. The point is,someone is trying to justify the fanaticism of Thackeray and the blood on Modi's hand by simply saying 'if Gandhi/Nehru didnt sell us short, we wouldnt need Modi/Thackeray'. My question is, what should Gandhi/Nehru have done that wouldn't have sold us short ? This is a fairly simple question. Oppose Khilafat doesnt mean squat- i fail to see just how exactly Gandhi/Nehru can be blamed for today's situation with terrorism. Unless you are a fanatic nutter hindu who believes that all muslims should be kicked out of India or they must relinquish their faiths, i don't see what possibly other alternative route existed.

There was option to cross the border if the cards had been played well things wud have been better for sure. Travesty today is those who fought for pakistan stayed behind in India. It's not my words the great Sardara Patel said this in august house of parliament and it has not been purged from the record books so clowns like you can't dismiss it as crap. So yes Gandhi/Nehru screwed it. Little fact: In all but two seats ( not sure about this exact number) Jinnah saheb seeking vote on the basis of formation of Pakistan won otoh hindu mahasabha hardly won anything. In fact muslims from Pakistan region were more united India thanks to Baadshaha Khan who turned war thirsty pathan's into gandhivadi. As a result when plebiscite happend in NWFP pakistan won by simple majority of 1% vote.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers Btw Gandhiji did expedite the process of fission with his frequent use of metaphor ram-rajya in his private life which was not so private after-all. Just imagine the bunch of intrinsically fissiparous folks being told by a leader who was outwardly staunch hindu and talks about Ram-rajya as a synonym of good government. It has fanning the islam-in-danger call written all over it. Since I am convinced these blokes can't co-exist metaphor or no metaphor. Just a cursory look around the world would reinforce this fact, so can't blame gandhij for the whole concept of fission though.

[kumble_rocks]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers Can you imagine Gandhi celebrating bakri eid. :hic:

[Lurker]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

The part where you only accept his books or in the absense of which you need some sort of certified evidence as the ultimate reference to any discussion on him ....

That is only fair is it not? You are suggesting that Gandhi did not learn from his mistakes. You are also suggesting that Gandhi knew he was making mistakes and yet did the same. I say okay in that case we need to first establish that Gandhi indeed acknowledged that and what would be a better way than to trace his acknowledgement directly? Since we are practically alleging that Gandhi had been stabbed in the back by Muslims, and that he himself admitted it, it is only fair to establish that fact.

Only philosophically ... atleast according to me.

Fair enough. I say it was much more but lets not worry about semantics.

Millions killed. ML pretty much got what it wanted. MKG went out of his way to appease the nutbags ... while being totally aware that his philosophy was not subscribed by most ML leadership and followers (ML had received overwhleming majority vote on its agenda from its followers). Despite all these facts MKG went ahead and pretty much coerced every leader worth his salt into making sure that the population exchange was made optional.(Most Muslims did not leave current day India)

Now this is again a very dicey statement to make. I doubt anyone, even today, has a better arrangement in mind than what actually happened in 1947. You suggest that Muslim League got pretty much what it wanted, many else are of the opinion that those who advocated for creation of Pakistan stayed back. So which one is true? Can you imagine someone fighting for Pakistan and then staying back?? Millions killed. But where were these millions killed? Why is it that the states that had some of the most, if not most, Hindu-Muslim population did not suffer as much casuality? Why is it that more people died at the Punjab border than UP,Bihar,Bengal put together!! Why is it that inspite of having a substantial Muslim population in Bihar/UP there were hardly any riots(to the standards of Noakholi or Punjab border). You say millions died because of Gandhi. I say many more millions survived. Again going back to Freedom at Midnight it was Gandhi that made sure Noakholi didnt go up in flame. When Nehru was in Delhi and Jinah was in Lahore it ws Gandhi doing the fast unto death at Noakholi. By the way the reason why Bihar didnt go up in smoke was because Khan Ghaffar Khan was camping here. The Frontier Gandhi had chosen to be in a Hindu dominated state while Gandhi chose to be in a Muslim dominated region. This was the greatness of these men, how can you even think of putting him and Modi and Togadia in the same sentence? xxxx

[Gaurav]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers "Muft main liya Pakistan lad ke lenge Hindustan" Watch this space mere doston.

[CC1981]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

There was option to cross the border if the cards had been played well things wud have been better for sure.

Don't think it would've worked out very well. First of all, no Hyderabadi Muslim would've gone since the Nizam was planning on staying independent/acceding to Pakistan. That blows a hole in the theory right there. Second, for a country as vast, populated and diverse as India, even a better played 'boot the muslims out' campaign would've had difficulty in implementation. Plus i think it would've been counter-productive to the unity fabric in India. Right now its fundie muslims and maoists facting up stuff..i think if we had a 'boot the muslims out' campaign during partition, it'd have been very bad for hindu-christian/hindu-sikh relationship. I can only imagine the Khalisthaan movement being 10x more violent and dangerous if they could use 'boot the muslims out by the hindus during partition' as a rallying cry. If you've followed Indian politics one iota, you know how powerful the cry of 'they did this injustice in the past to them, they are doing it to us now ! fight for your rights!' is in Indian politics... Look, i don't know why we have to resort to this sort of extreme, unfeasable and unworkable solutions. A much more straightforward one exists : infiltrate the hell out of Ummah and all the mosques. Quitely make a few 'especially bad' mullahs vanish, promote mullahs who's message is the furthest away from the Koran and closest to us. I recommend to you all a book called Arthashastra. Its the ultmate book with a 'means to an end' concept that is the big daddy of all books ever written about rulership. We have to have a counter-islamic tilt in the government due to Islam's inherent streak of violence/incompatability with us. But it must be through clandestine levels, not trigger-happy bombastic retards like Thackaray or Modi.

[Lurker]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

They got both didnt they ? They got the territory and left behind enough Mullahs to carry forward their agenda didnt they ? You would have been right had the few Hindus that stayed back in Pak carried on the fight like the muslim fundies do a la kashmir ... The ML asked for a sepearate piece of land and they were indeed supported by a vast majority of Muslims all over India ... do you agree to that or not ?

No I am not going to agree to that. India's stance has always been that it would be a multi-religious identity. India was never envisaged as a Hindu country. Followers of every religion had the right to live in India, including Muslims. Pakistan was a country established just for Muslims. So there is no comparison really. If Pakistan's own record when it comes to treatment of Hindus is miserable that doesnt mean I would want India to have the same record. As for your question about ML having the bulk of Indian Muslim support how did you arrive at that conclusion? Any historical election result etc would help really.

Are you aware that there were more Hindus and Sikhs killed than Muslims ?

What are the numbers here? A good source would be welcome. I would much rather know what we are debating here instead of suggesting x million Hindus/Sikhs killed while pnly Y million Muslims perished. xxxx

[yoda]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers We obviously got screwed over big time. You can't agree to a partition based on religion and that too with two distinct sections on either side and still have a great number of population from that religion left behind. Gandhi/Nehru should have told Jinnah this: "Show us a plan to take all YOUR people to a separate piece of continguous land whose size will be proportional to the pupulation being take out, and we will agree to it, otherwise STFU and stay behind as a single secular country".

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers Everything could have been done Nizam would have fallen earlier in that case through civil war. Didn't junagarh naba already had signed the accession papers in favour of pakistan what happened nothing. Didn;t Khan of Kalat had caleld nehru saying he wants to be with India what happened nothing. Once clarity of though hyad been there things wud have worked out it's not like the transisiotn was peaceful by toeing jinnah/nehru/gandhi line. This intrinsic contradiction of division based on religion and yet who wanted that divided nation staying back is idiocy of highest order. And the call by left-over muslim league for separate elctorate formuslims smade their intention pretty clear. BTW audacity of these folks in making the aformentioned demand aside we hindus must give vibe of aa bail mujhe maar. I can't imagaine this happening anywhere else in the backdrop of partition based on religion. Though Sardaar Patel gave befitting reply ti that idiot, the same factual reply as of today might risk the validity of the party concerned in EC's eyes.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: 'Islamic radicals' chargedwith plot to kill FortDix soldiers

No I am not going to agree to that. India's stance has always been that it would be a multi-religious identity. India was never envisaged as a Hindu country. Followers of every religion had the right to live in India, including Muslims. Pakistan was a country established just for Muslims. So there is no comparison really. If Pakistan's own record when it comes to treatment of Hindus is miserable that doesnt mean I would want India to have the same record. As for your question about ML having the bulk of Indian Muslim support how did you arrive at that conclusion? Any historical election result etc would help really.

He didn't ask what india's stance has been try answering the question heb asked. Overwhelming 99.999999999% muslims wanted pakistan or not? Whatever answer you give try reconciling that with the fact that Jinnah won all of muslim territory elections on the agenda of creation of pakistan. Aha historical election result I wonder how u missed this part of the history. [Jinnah winning all but two seats from muslim constituency in 46 and election manifesto was creation of pakistan.] Sounds like referendum to any sane person.