Trichromatic Posted June 11, 2018 Author Share Posted June 11, 2018 17 hours ago, surajmal said: didn't we already do this thread like couple of weeks ago? Yes, I think we had. Did you create that one? We can merge two threads. Green Monster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 My Nana tells me that in partition 80% from Pakistani (east+west) non-Muslims moved to India.... And the same percentage of Indian Muslims were to go to Pakistan.... But gandhi stopped that.... That is why godse killed him... Green Monster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollum Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Well, if you ever go to Kalapani, you can see the record of occupancy of each and every cell till it was turned a museum. Yes, we Bongs have a reputation to be non-war-like people and last time we did anything significant in the military department was over a thousand years ago. But what will surprise you, is the sum total of Bengalis incarcerated by British for violent crimes against the crown & English civillians, is greater than the rest of India combined. The Kalapani records shows that pretty emphatically. Indians think 'SC Bose was the one Bengali with a spine and wanted to fight' - but they forget that we literally had legions and legions of Bhagat Singh types- Khudi Ram Bose, Binoy, Badol, Dinesh, etc. Yes I am aware that max inmates in Kalapani were Bengalis. We had the revolutionary terrorism phase where Bengalis were at the forefront via organizations like Jugantar, Anushilan Samiti etc. There were many Bhagat Singh type clones, eg Khudiram Bose was the youngest revolutionary to be sent to the gallows. Bengal was the main engine behind our struggle for Independence and I am very much on record saying that India owes a lot to Bengal not only for being at the forefront of the freedom struggle but also ushering in the Indian Renaissance without which our society would have remained a barbaric, chaotic, morally bankrupt, culture-less one even today. Bengal shone for a short period (historical timescale) but it shone the brightest. When I criticize Bengal it is with a heavy heart because of the steep fall this once great region has endured. Bengal had a glorious run for 2 centuries in the modern era and the then Bengali Hindus were a feisty set of people but if you look at either side of that golden period, it doesn't paint a rosy picture and the people have been subservient to Muslims. Today's Bengalis are unrecognizable if you compare them to their great predecessors. Edited June 11, 2018 by Gollum grammar, spelling Green Monster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishra Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 On 6/11/2018 at 7:38 AM, Gollum said: Yes I am aware that max inmates in Kalapani were Bengalis. We had the revolutionary terrorism phase where Bengalis were at the forefront via organizations like Jugantar, Anushilan Samiti etc. There were many Bhagat Singh type clones, eg Khudiram Bose was the youngest revolutionary to be sent to the gallows. Bengal was the main engine behind our struggle for Independence and I am very much on record saying that India owes a lot to Bengal not only for being at the forefront of the freedom struggle but also ushering in the Indian Renaissance without which our society would have remained a barbaric, chaotic, morally bankrupt, culture-less one even today. Bengal shone for a short period (historical timescale) but it shone the brightest. When I criticize Bengal it is with a heavy heart because of the steep fall this once great region has endured. Bengal had a glorious run for 2 centuries in the modern era and the then Bengali Hindus were a feisty set of people but if you look at either side of that golden period, it doesn't paint a rosy picture and the people have been subservient to Muslims. Today's Bengalis are unrecognizable if you compare them to their great predecessors. Blame it to communism. Communism is a very good thing when you are in school and college. It makes them fiety, Fearless and strong who can take a stand. But Bengaliscarried it even after leaving the college. The demise of Bengal occurred because Communism is prone to rot the System(once downhill movement has started) as there is no checks in place Green Monster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 8 hours ago, mishra said: Blame it to communism. Communism is a very good thing when you are in school and college. It makes them fiety, Fearless and strong who can take a stand. But Bengaliscarried it even after leaving the college. The demise of Bengal occurred because Communism is prone to rot the System(once downhill movement has started) as there is no checks in place Best way to describe communism (not socialism, which is different) is the way Churchill said it : " If you are 25 and you are not a communist, it means you have no heart. If you are 35 and you are still a communist, it means you have no brain" Number, randomGuy, Gollum and 1 other 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) gandhi was a SJW type idealist. jinnah was pragmatic.... a bigot but pragmatic. Edited June 14, 2018 by FischerTal Gollum, Stradlater, Green Monster and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 History as penned by our historians says: INC = mahaan set of people who got us Independence, nvm WW2. Gandhi+Nehru = real heroes, which thus implies Jinnah = Villain. randomGuy, Gollum and Green Monster 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riya Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 On 6/14/2018 at 12:25 AM, FischerTal said: gandhi was a SJW type idealist. jinnah was pragmatic.... a bigot but pragmatic. But then who isn't ..Life taught me that every human is a bigot...but then some are of extreme level. Gollum, Green Monster and Stradlater 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moochad Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 My 2 paisa, Jinnah was pragmatic and actually represented his people... He is shown as in a bad light because he disproves what Nehruvians thought about partition, that it was a mistake. I don't think anyone honest could say India would be a better place if it wasn't divided... People have to remember that people in the Congress/Nehruvians/Gandhians thought that partition was going to evaporate and the two sides were going to become 1 country again soon, how wrong they were! Bengalis are heavily influenced by Communism/Socialism nowadays, Bengal continues to be one of the most violent states when it comes to political violence in India. Just replace nationalist violence with Communist/Socialist/Islamist violence there and you get that behavior is the same but the "intellectuals" are different less nationalists and more communist/socialists as intellectuals. If we are going to quote churchill to condemn communism, we should also post what he said about socialism Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill, speech at the Scottish Unionist Conference, Perth, Scotland (28 May 1948) Green Monster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, Moochad said: My 2 paisa, Jinnah was pragmatic and actually represented his people... He is shown as in a bad light because he disproves what Nehruvians thought about partition, that it was a mistake. I don't think anyone honest could say India would be a better place if it wasn't divided... How is he a pragmatic when he wanted an India-Pakistan-Hyderabad 'loose confederation' ? To me thats even less realistic than what Gandhi & Nehru wanted - atleast with the latter, a strong central govt. could've held the nation together. But in Jinnah's model there was no chance fully autonomous federal entities seggregated on religious lines would continue to share a central government. Jinnah only went for full partition after Nehru rejected his bogus Federation idea. Green Monster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moochad Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: How is he a pragmatic when he wanted an India-Pakistan-Hyderabad 'loose confederation' ? To me thats even less realistic than what Gandhi & Nehru wanted - atleast with the latter, a strong central govt. could've held the nation together. But in Jinnah's model there was no chance fully autonomous federal entities seggregated on religious lines would continue to share a central government. Jinnah only went for full partition after Nehru rejected his bogus Federation idea. From Jinnah perspective there is no "nation" of India, only Hindus and Muslims and others and the very idea of an India was either a British creation,(or at best a Mughal creation). You are saying this from the perspective that India is actually a nation, in which case a strong central government could be a positive thing, but Jinnah hardly cared about that. His interests were maximizing Muslim population's political power not establishing some independent India comprised of everyone. Everything he endorsed from a separate electorate to eventually partition can only be seen in the light of maximizing political power for Muslims. Green Monster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 32 minutes ago, Moochad said: From Jinnah perspective there is no "nation" of India, only Hindus and Muslims and others and the very idea of an India was either a British creation,(or at best a Mughal creation). You are saying this from the perspective that India is actually a nation, in which case a strong central government could be a positive thing, but Jinnah hardly cared about that. His interests were maximizing Muslim population's political power not establishing some independent India comprised of everyone. Everything he endorsed from a separate electorate to eventually partition can only be seen in the light of maximizing political power for Muslims. But he did initially support an idea of a nation called India, with muslim and hindu areas being federations. Sort of like how Scotland + Wales + England are under the UK, but with even greater autonomy (he wanted Sharia law for muslim areas, the nations under Great Britain share an uniform civil & criminal code). Important difference is, he did not want different laws for muslims, but for muslim regions. Green Monster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 4 hours ago, riya said: But then who isn't ..Life taught me that every human is a bigot...but then some are of extreme level. every human is selfish for sure. to be a bigot though requires for you to apply your narrow-minded views on the entire society and in jinnah's case, apply them to argue for a nation based on a religion. Looking at the condition of pakistan today, he got his just deserts. both gandhi and jinnah were wrong in my opinion. both should have argued for a completely secular state, which means elimination of religion or any personal beliefs from the government sphere and its policy-making. a european style secular state is the only way humanity can move forward, but the subcontinent is in such deep **** now that it is next to impossible to dream of such a thing. Green Monster and Muloghonto 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moochad Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 22 hours ago, Muloghonto said: But he did initially support an idea of a nation called India, with muslim and hindu areas being federations. Sort of like how Scotland + Wales + England are under the UK, but with even greater autonomy (he wanted Sharia law for muslim areas, the nations under Great Britain share an uniform civil & criminal code). Important difference is, he did not want different laws for muslims, but for muslim regions. Not being averse to a country of India is not the same as actively supporting a nation. Green Monster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moochad Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 19 hours ago, FischerTal said: every human is selfish for sure. to be a bigot though requires for you to apply your narrow-minded views on the entire society and in jinnah's case, apply them to argue for a nation based on a religion. Looking at the condition of pakistan today, he got his just deserts. both gandhi and jinnah were wrong in my opinion. both should have argued for a completely secular state, which means elimination of religion or any personal beliefs from the government sphere and its policy-making. a european style secular state is the only way humanity can move forward, but the subcontinent is in such deep **** now that it is next to impossible to dream of such a thing. This is a bit of an cognitive dissonance imo, the very concept of secularism itself is a christian notion, there's a really good book on this by a Belgian author, if you are interested and personal beliefs are the basis of democracy, ie as whether someone follows capitalism or socialism as policy of economics. enough people in a political party believe in socialism, a country will adopt it Green Monster and Tibarn 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 On 6/16/2018 at 10:00 AM, Moochad said: This is a bit of an cognitive dissonance imo, the very concept of secularism itself is a christian notion, there's a really good book on this by a Belgian author, if you are interested and personal beliefs are the basis of democracy, ie as whether someone follows capitalism or socialism as policy of economics. enough people in a political party believe in socialism, a country will adopt it Yindoos need to saffron pill themselves and actually read books by people like Jakob de Roover, Prof Balu, SRG, Shourie, Elst etc Our Junta has been misled to think everything from implementing UCC to repealing Article 370 to implementing "true secularism" are panaceas for every problem. Moochad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moochad Posted June 17, 2018 Share Posted June 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Tibarn said: Yindoos need to saffron pill themselves and actually read books by people like Jakob de Roover, Prof Balu, SRG, Shourie, Elst etc Our Junta has been misled to think everything from implementing UCC to repealing Article 370 to implementing "true secularism" are panaceas for every problem. Balu's book is too long for me to find time to read! My copy is sitting collecting dust still... Tibarn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts