Modi at grave of Gandhi

[mishra]

1 hour ago, Shaz1 said:

So basically Indians appreciate a leader that allowed Pakistan to separate from India. Looks like we are on the same page here.

Godse , IMO, believed to respond Lahore ( and rest of Pakistan) riots by Delhi ( and rest of India) riots assuming that it will deter Muslims of Lahore. 

Gandhi wanted solution by non response by Hindus, assuming that non violence at Delhi may deter Riots by Muslims in Lahore (Pakistan) but definitely save lives in Delhi(rest of india)

 

Fact is: Muslim of Lahore ( rest of Pakistan) wouldn’t have and did not listened to either approach. Its just that Gandhi approach saved many lives in Delhi( and rest of India)

 

Rest all is for people to discuss including memebera of this forum as most are very reasonable people

Edited October 3, 2019 by mishra

[coffee_rules]

2 hours ago, mishra said:

Because Gandhi is definition of sacred.

 

Indian Nationalist couldn’t retaliate to bloodshed orchestrated by Jinnah and his supporters, and Muslim population in particular region because Gandhi could and would stop them. 

Hindus will rightfully complain that Gandhji was unjust for not letting them retaliate when they were being raped pillaged , burned, driven away from their hime. Infact effective genocide was in progress on both sides of Indian border. Thats where it all stops. 

Read this book.

https://www.scribd.com/document/200330428/It-Was-the-Muslims-Who-Started-Partition-of-India-Violence-By-Ranjit-Singh

 

The violence was triggered on 16th Aug 1946 , one year before when Jinnah called the Direct Action Day!. What Hs and Ss did was to retaliate the violence as it would not stop. A lot of people carried that resentment towards Gandhi Nehru for betraying millions of Hs.

 

Quote

More importantly, its wrong & unjust to put the blame of partition riots equally on Hindus & Sikhs as on Muslims. While the Muslims were killing the Hindus & Sikhs to terrorize them according to Islamic justification to install darul-Islam of Pakistan; the Hindus & Sikh violence was a retaliation & revenge after they had lost their loved ones under harrowing Muslim barbarity for one full year starting Direct Action Day, 16th Aug 1946 on the eve of 18th of Ramadan, when the Muslims first started killing Hindus & Sikhs of Bengal and later Punjab that year.

For a Muslim in pre-independence times, the
idea of dar-ul-Islam of Pakistan was a cherished dream. Jinnah may have just leadered the Muslim
league activities; but the Pakistan movement was brought to reality by the Muslims not because they
were following Jinnah, but because they were obeying the commands of Allah & Qu’ran. For a Muslim
in pre-independent India, the word “independence from British” meant re-installation of Islamic
caliphate in India, not the independence of a free & Democratic India. Muslims thought that
democracy is an act of idolatory & yet another ‘Hindu conspiracy’ to take control of India from the
rightful owners of India – the Muslims. “Oh how clever these Hindu infidels are ! India belongs to the
sons of Bin Qasim, Mughals and Tipu Sultan not these Hindu & Sikh kuffars!”
The Muslim league in Punjab aroused the Muslim dominated Punjab police and Muslims of Punjab to
begin a wave of well-planned attacks on Sikh villages in West Punjab. The first riots in Punjab began
with western most to centrally located districts of Punjab such as Peshawar, Jhang, then Sheikhpura,
Multan, Lyallpur and Villages around Lahore & Nankana sahib and even Amritsar. All these regions
had Muslim majority.

 

 

 

[coffee_rules]

3 hours ago, mishra said:

Its very easy to find fault in a person. Whoever is making those tweets is actually doing disservice to Hindus and Indians, not just locally but on global platform. 

Should be arrested. But in modern India, you get arrested when you tweet against ruling party Politicians.

 Gandhi is one up here too

But it is all true, they are not fake news. 

[MechEng]

16 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

They are from same state, he is bowing to a fellow gujju. So what? Dont equate him to your country's mullah politicians. He has always spoken high of MKG. 

 

Libturds world over are burning over his op-ed in nytimes on MKG's 150th birth anniversay. Sab ko sulag rahi hain. Mazaa aagya.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/opinion/modi-mahatma-gandhi.html

 

 

This chuth from Al-jazeera.

 

 

Does NY Times have a strong Pakistani workforce or something? Never understood why they would take Kashmir issue so seriously when US has it's own battles to fight.

[mishra]

11 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Read this book.

https://www.scribd.com/document/200330428/It-Was-the-Muslims-Who-Started-Partition-of-India-Violence-By-Ranjit-Singh

 

The violence was triggered on 16th Aug 1946 , one year before when Jinnah called the Direct Action Day!. What Hs and Ss did was to retaliate the violence as it would not stop. A lot of people carried that resentment towards Gandhi Nehru for betraying millions of Hs.

 

 

 

Exactly, It comes out very rich when Pakistanis claim that Jinnah was secular and magnanimous and blah blah blah. He was brutal as any Muslim regime can be, well planned, used riots as excuse to kill or drive away Non-Muslims from Pakistan.

 

He used Gandhi to make Indian politicians and Indian State to acquiesce to his demands even when it was crystal clear to all of Indians and Indian politicians that Pakistan will become a hostile state on 14th August 1947.  Baffling why Gandhi kept on accepting his demands.

[Peshust]

9 hours ago, MechEng said:

Does NY Times have a strong Pakistani workforce or something? Never understood why they would take Kashmir issue so seriously when US has it's own battles to fight.

Good question- difficult to say for sure. Though this guy is an opinion editor at The New York Times (International)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basharat_Peer

 

Would it surprise you that this guy studied at Aligarh Muslim University? Would it surprise you that he scripted the movie Haider?

[veer]

My opinion is that things are not always black and white.. Gandhiji was a great man and out of his kindness he gave away a lot to pakistan.. and we are paying for his and Nehru's mistakes till date... But we were not at that time so situation could be different.

[Alam_dar]

On 10/4/2019 at 11:17 AM, mishra said:

Exactly, It comes out very rich when Pakistanis claim that Jinnah was secular and magnanimous and blah blah blah. He was brutal as any Muslim regime can be, well planned, used riots as excuse to kill or drive away Non-Muslims from Pakistan.

 

He used Gandhi to make Indian politicians and Indian State to acquiesce to his demands even when it was crystal clear to all of Indians and Indian politicians that Pakistan will become a hostile state on 14th August 1947.  Baffling why Gandhi kept on accepting his demands.

 

I feel that Jinnah and Imran Khan have a lot in common. 

 

Both are originally western educated and supposed to be secularists, but for "Personal fame/benefits", both used "Religious Cards". 

 

This makes such "liberal Muslims" even more dangerous than the actual extremist Muslims with long beards. 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Alam_dar

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, Under_Score said:

Non-violence was a 'Ghanta' excuse by the weak mariyal Gandhi...people who call him 'Mahatma' are stupid. British didn't leave India because they got tired of smacking Gandhi and his followers on their timid skulls. They left because of the Second World War and England was their priority. 

 

Here is a bluff from Gandhi who was no less than a pedophile and some people still call him 'Father of the Nation'

 

Towards the end of his life, it became public knowledge that Gandhi had been sharing his bed for a number of years with young women.[37][38] He explained that he did this for bodily warmth at night and termed his actions as "nature cure".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMahatma_Gandhi%2FArchive_8

I personally believe that Personal life is actually private. 

 

Secondly, if young women had no problem with it, then again I am totally ok with it. 

 

Thirdly, Gandhi was doing it for "experiments" where he was sleeping but not having sex with them. This is unnatural way of life for me, but still according to my preferences it was the right of Gandhi to do every type of experiments with the permission of the young girls and nothing bad in it.  Humanity found new ways of life, always due to some new experiments of some people. These people rebel against the normal social norms which is very difficult thing to do. 

 

Therefore, at least in my eyes, there is nothing wrong with this practice of Gandhi. Actually I appreciate Gandhi for showing courage against the norms of society and for indulging in new experiment for human beings. 

 

 

[mishra]

10 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I feel that Jinnah and Imran Khan have a lot in common. 

 

Both are originally western educated and supposed to be secularists, but for "Personal fame/benefits", both used "Religious Cards". 

 

This makes such "liberal Muslims" even more dangerous than the actual extremist Muslims with long beards. 

Western education is not related to fanatism else you won’t have hoardes of UK born Jihadist fighting war In Syria Afghanistan Pakistan and Brides. 

They dont/didnt just use it, I am certain they believe/believed in it too. They are/were simply leaders and play.played the cards well in front of outside world and mobilise the troops.

 

BTW, rest of world isn’t blind either. It can see through the hippocracy. No one apart from Muslims have no sympathy to Immy or Kashmir. Simply because they are not Muslims who will buy the Ummah and religion theory.

Edited October 6, 2019 by mishra

[Alam_dar]

3 minutes ago, mishra said:

Western education is not related to fanatism else you won’t have hoardes of UK born Jihadist fighting war In Syria Afghanistan Pakistan and Brides

Exactly, but still these European Jihadis look like Jihadis with long beards. 

But Jinnah and Imran Khan are clean shaved people who give very wrong impression of being secularists, and this is a thing which makes them more dangerous than normal Jihadist with beard.