Lurker Posted August 19, 2009 Author Share Posted August 19, 2009 That "nautanki" is what counts in the elections. The strength of a party lies more in its cadres and mass leaders than the so called intellectuals. I mean' date= what would not the BJP give for a saffron Mulayam or Mayawati. A hundred Arun Shouries or Arun Jaitleys cannot compare to a Narendra Modi, Naveen Patnaik or a Jayalalithaa. So in the end BJP turned out to be no different than any other party eh? Wasnt it their USP that "we are clean party", "we dont do gimmicks", "we dont field criminals" blah blah blah. Turns out even their ardent supporter dont agree to that line anymore :--D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 So in the end BJP turned out to be no different than any other party eh? Wasnt it their USP that "we are clean party"' date=' "we dont do gimmicks", "we dont field criminals" blah blah blah. Turns out even their ardent supporter dont agree to that line anymore :--D[/quote']You missed the word saffron before the words Mulayam and Mayawati. They would be pure like saffron :--D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kabira Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I find that surprising. In my opinion leaders like Jaswant Singh are a class apart from mass base anyway. I mean "mass" leaders are the one who the nautanki. Laloo, Mulayam, Modi are all mass leaders to me. Folks like Jaswant Singh, Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie are what are called statesman, in my opinion. To kick them out for so called mass appeal is sheer ridiculous. Modi is nautanki Wah, first time I heard it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomainK Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I liked the guy back when I used to take interest in politics. He did some amazing job in foreign relations. And yes, it takes guts in politics to talk against the popular opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngindia Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 yes but he should have done it on solid facts and on deep thinking .not on foolishness and shallow thinkin****** it not even an original argument. frankly its hilarious. first of all the muslim league's call for federalism was based on communal lines. it was not because of any inherent love for federalism. the misguided poet mohammed iqbal had a called for politcal power to muslims because he dreamt of islam as a dynamic cultural force in the northwest of india.there was a group of crazy students in england dreaming of a simiular scheme called pakistan based on this . the feudals of the muslim league including the elitist jinnah, snatched upon it as a blackmail tactic vs the congress, once relations between congress and ML broke down in 1937.. why should the congress grant undue powers to certain selective regions so that mr.iqbal realises his mad fantasy(pakistan has ofcourse iqbal proud with its terrorist havens and demanding bailouts before every full moon. ) and that the feudal self serving scumbags of the muslim league be free of the threat of losing their lands due to promsed land reforms by the congress ? how is the congress supposed to accept muslim league as the sole representative of muslims as jinnah demanded ? these things were never going to happen. no secular democrat worth is salt will allow this. its not even a original argument. there are people like AG noorani who exonerate jinnah just because he accepted the cabinet mission plan(with reluctance and uncertainty) and that nehru sabtaged it. and his defence of the cabinet mission plan is hilarious. jaswant is repeating the same shallow minded exercise. The reason i am beginning to resent this jinnah backers is not because their opinion is different. but their facts,logic and case are so flimsy. i can demolish their cases in my sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted August 20, 2009 Author Share Posted August 20, 2009 yes but he should have done it on solid facts and on deep thinking .not on foolishness and shallow thinkin****** it not even an original argument. frankly its hilarious. first of all the muslim league's call for federalism was based on communal lines. it was not because of any inherent love for federalism. the misguided poet mohammed iqbal had a called for politcal power to muslims because he dreamt of islam as a dynamic cultural force in the northwest of india.there was a group of crazy students in england dreaming of a simiular scheme called pakistan based on this . the feudals of the muslim league including the elitist jinnah, snatched upon it as a blackmail tactic vs the congress, once relations between congress and ML broke down in 1937.. why should the congress grant undue powers to certain selective regions so that mr.iqbal realises his mad fantasy(pakistan has ofcourse iqbal proud with its terrorist havens and demanding bailouts before every full moon. ) and that the feudal self serving scumbags of the muslim league be free of the threat of losing their lands due to promsed land reforms by the congress ? how is the congress supposed to accept muslim league as the sole representative of muslims as jinnah demanded ? these things were never going to happen. no secular democrat worth is salt will allow this. its not even a original argument. there are people like AG noorani who exonerate jinnah just because he accepted the cabinet mission plan(with reluctance and uncertainty) and that nehru sabtaged it. and his defence of the cabinet mission plan is hilarious. jaswant is repeating the same shallow minded exercise. The reason i am beginning to resent this jinnah backers is not because their opinion is different. but their facts,logic and case are so flimsy. i can demolish their cases in my sleep. You did seem to be sleeping when you wrote that post :secret: Pray do tell what is connection of Jawasnt Singh with AG Noorani? I am almost sure you have not even read Jaswant Singh's book and have went on to rant whole nine yards about it. With all due respect its folks like you who make a thread absolutely meaningless. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngindia Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 You did seem to be sleeping when you wrote that post :secret: Pray do tell what is connection of Jawasnt Singh with AG Noorani? maybe you may want to stop this foolish practice of rushing into conclusions .how do you know there was no connection? ag noorani keeps putting forward a similar argument that nehru wrecked the cabinet misssion plan and was pursuing a course towards partition for his wishes for a "strong centre" . try to get the information right before you comment. got it? frankly what is your problem here? are you a fan of noorani or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted August 20, 2009 Author Share Posted August 20, 2009 maybe you may want to stop this foolish practice of rushing into conclusions .how do you know there was no connection? ag noorani keeps putting forward a similar argument that nehru wrecked the cabinet misssion plan and was pursuing a course towards partition for his wishes for a "strong centre" . try to get the information right before you comment. got it? frankly what is your problem here? are you a fan of noorani or what? I give up :hysterical::hysterical: yes I wrote what I did because I am a Noorani fan. Now please go back to sleep :giggle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Personally, Nehru and Jinnah were [edited] ..One wanted a country for muslims with secular ideals, lol... The other took a newly formed country down a confused route called socialism and made China a bigger monster than it would have been today... Jinnah and Nehru shared one thing in common, they wanted their own kingdoms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tendulkar Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Be respectful. Nehru was one of our founding fathers who fought for independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Be respectful. Nehru was one of our founding fathers who fought for independence. with all due respects, do u consider Nehru to be a visionary leader, he may have had the right intentions, but he wasnt competent enough. I do respect him as he is one of the founding leaders but am afraid thats about it... I actually have far greater respect for people like SC Bose, Bhagat singh, and other revolutionaries who made ultimate sacrifices for the independence of our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zubinpepsi Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Personally' date=' Nehru and Jinnah were [edited'] ..One wanted a country for muslims with secular ideals, lol... The other took a newly formed country down a confused route called socialism and made China a bigger monster than it would have been today... Jinnah and Nehru shared one thing in common, they wanted their own kingdoms with all due respects, do u consider Nehru to be a visionary leader, he may have had the right intentions, but he wasnt competent enough. I do respect him as he is one of the founding leaders but am afraid thats about it... I actually have far greater respect for people like SC Bose, Bhagat singh, and other revolutionaries who made ultimate sacrifices for the independence of our country. I am with u on this.. :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngindia Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I actually have far greater respect for people like SC Bose, Bhagat singh, and other revolutionaries who made ultimate sacrifices for the independence of our country. they are at best supporting cast. they made as much impact on the british rule as a needle and they are more competent than nehru :haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngindia Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Personally' date=' Nehru and Jinnah were [edited'] ..One wanted a country for muslims with secular ideals, lol... that's walking on thin ice. all they have is one speech he made on one fine day in august with nothing else to show for it. that's not enough to prove secular credentials after 10+ years of communal politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 [quote=youngindia;768064 they are at best supporting cast. they made as much impact on the british rule as a needle and they are more competent than nehru :haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngindia Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I give up do you work in a circus? here- " Nehru believed in a highly centralized polity. That's what he wanted India to be. Jinnah wanted a federal polity. That even Gandhi accepted. Nehru didn't. Consistently, he stood in the way of a federal India until 1947 when it became a partitioned India," said Jaswant Singh to Karan Thapar in an interview to a news channel. " in his book, he mentions several other things but this is the primary reason on which he criticised nehru. This is the similarity between noorani's views(albeit articulated years ago) and now jaswant has come with a similar view now go back to your clowning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngindia Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 So may I know what Nehru did, that the british were compelled to grant independence? lady mountbatten?:hmmm: Nehru was the supporting cast in the struggle for independence..... basic poltical sense. man. are you atleast savvy enough to understand that congress was the party of choice of the indian masses at that time barring muslims and that the british were negotiating the transfer of power primarily with the congress party in which nehru was the second most important leader ? it was the congress party and the stature of ganghiji and nehru that held the fate of most indians at that time. hence congress was the primary indian representative that led india to freedom, though they never won the support of majority of muslims who preferred the muslim league. bhagat and subhas (great freedom fighters intheir own right) never had the influence as wide as gandhiji and nehru did. can you think of attlee inviting bhagat or subhas to transfer power? its not even close. your statement is totally absurd. you are given weighted importance based on the influence you have. in the current poltical scene, it is congress and bjp that occupies the highest profile, isn't it? is it based on the influence they have on indian politics currently? that's how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 basic poltical sense. man. are you atleast savvy enough to understand that congress was the party of choice of the indian masses at that time barring muslims and that the british were negotiating the transfer of power primarily with the congress party in which nehru was the second most important leader ? it was the congress party and the stature of ganghiji and nehru that held the fate of most indians at that time. hence congress was the primary indian representative that led india to freedom, though they never won the support of majority of muslims who preferred the muslim league. bhagat and subhas (great freedom fighters intheir own right) never had the influence as wide as gandhiji and nehru did. can you think of attlee inviting bhagat or subhas to transfer power? its not even close. your statement is totally absurd. you are given weighted importance based on the influence you have. in the current poltical scene, it is congress and bjp that occupies the highest profile, isn't it? is it based on the influence they have on indian politics currently? that's how it is. Well am as savvy as u are, assuming you werent around when India got its independence. Its the actions of the numerous martyrs and freedom fighters coupled the changing strategic landscape that forced the british to give independence..Its not Nehru's influence or negotiation skills that won us our freedom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngindia Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Well am as savvy as u are' date=' assuming you werent around when India got its independence. Its the actions of the numerous martyrs and freedom fighters coupled the changing strategic landscape that forced the british to give independence..Its not Nehru's influence or negotiation skills that won us our freedom...[/quote'] let me put it this way. which guy is going to influence events more a guy with support of 100 people a guy with support of 100000 people a guy with support of 1 million a guy with support of 20 milion a guy with support of 100 million get the drift? ofcourse its improtant to acknowledge the sacrifices and role of the other freedom fighters. but you have a perspective to keep as well. whether you like it or not, gandhiji and nehru were the two most important indians and congress party was the foremost organisation in the freedom struggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 At least the book is not banned by the Government of India, notwithstanding Gujarat .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts