Sachin=GOD Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 NEW DELHI: Congress leader Digvijay Singh has kicked up yet another controversy by claiming that the real father of the two-nation theory leading to the country's partition was Veer Savarkar and not Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Speaking at a programme here on Wednesday, Singh sought to elaborate the point that ideologies of exclusion and extremism were unable to hold a nation together. Asked about his speech later, he told reporters at the Congress headquarters that in his view political intolerance caused irreparable rift within society. "Savarkar had the original idea of the two-nation theory which was later adopted by Jinnah," he said. "Extremist ideologies create division, it's not healthy for society." Singh had recently created a stir with his remarks about a `hostile campaign' by the Hindutva forces on Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare prior to his death in the 26/11 terror attack on Mumbai. The senior party leader sought to differentiate between extreme political theories based on religion and religious piety. "Any good Hindu or Muslim -- those who believe in their religion in the true sense -- cannot subscribe to extreme viewpoints," he said. Singh argued that presumably Savarkar had been an atheist while there were questions about Jinnah's adherence to the ways of a pious Muslim. He sought to suggest that had the two been true followers of their respective faiths neither would have tread such an extreme path. Giving the issue an immediate context, he said that the BJP had invariably preferred a contentious spot either to hoist the tricolour or build a temple. His hint was clearly at the opposition party's attempt at unfurling the national flag at Lal Chowk in Srinagar. Singh's remarks immediately sparked a controversy with the BJP wondering whether he had the mandate from his party to propound such views. BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad wanted to know if Singh was speaking on the subject on behalf of his party. Congress spokesman Shakil Ahmed, however, backed Singh by stressing that the former Madhya Pradesh chief minister was a senior party leader putting across his views with responsibility. The Times of India :headshake: this guy can't control himself and just has to make some kind of controversial statements every now and then.
achilles Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Self-goal expert. This guy used to be highly respected once upon a time.
The Outsider Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Not sure if Savarkar was the founder of the idea, but he certainly was a proponent.
ravishingravi Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 ^Wait I used to believe RSS endorsed the idea of "Akhand Bharat". Can you clarify this ?
arun81 Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 For the "Green" Lizards everything is a Evil Yindoo conspiracy
The Outsider Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 ^Wait I used to believe RSS endorsed the idea of "Akhand Bharat". Can you clarify this ? LOL! Akhand Bharat! The guy used to regularly endorse the notion that Hindus and Muslims are two different nations. Yeah, he coated it with saying that the two nations should live in the same country. What kind of rubbish it that.
seedhi Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Veer Savarkar's thesis was based on the history of India since Ghazini destroyed Somnath, a history characterized by the quest for Islamic supremacy and the oppression flowing thereof. His views have been more or less vindicated by the subsequent violent partition, riots, problems in pakistan, Kashmir not to mention the whole global jehad that the world has to deal with. The sugar coating is actually the veneer of "secularism" behind which we seek to hide the state of affairs. Secularism has been a failure - how many more terrorist attacks, riots and ethnic cleansings do we need to realize this? It has only fed into one community's victim and ghetto mentality, and this is evident world over, so dont blame the others for this.
bulbul Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 i think its better not to give more milage to what Doggy says.Either that guy wants publicity or its a well planned startegy of his masters.Our esteemed media also wont intrepret this as polotics if its done by BJP its called as politics.
Clarke Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 baah, does it matter ? This clown certainly does no favors to the reputation of the INC. What is the common man to think of the future of the party if future PM Rahul baba and DJ Singh share the same post ?
Cricketics Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 VD SAVARKAR'S IDEA was that if Muslims want a seperate nation than it shouldn't be built rite next to India. They should go find land in Middle east or somewhere. It was a terrific idea. Why would give them a land which is rite next to our land. Let them find a home in some other Arab state. He never wanted to break the nation into two.
bulbul Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 @ clarke, INC is trying to save its votebank.They are afraid after Bihar election where muslims Voted for BJP.so all these comments by Doggy regulerly.Do anybody thinks this guy doesnt have endorsed by his superiors ? How much force it takes from Gandhis to silence this guy.I think its a plan by INC to attack RSS.any way every Hindu wont Vote BJP but majority of muslims vote INC. i think its left to Muslim community to belive Dyggy or Not.
hari504504 Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 There is a reason why he is known as d i c kvijay..
ravishingravi Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 LOL! Akhand Bharat! The guy used to regularly endorse the notion that Hindus and Muslims are two different nations. Yeah' date=' he coated it with saying that the two nations should live in the same country. What kind of rubbish it that.[/quote'] I think his idea could have been of a theocracy like Pakistan by Hindus, but I am not aware of him being in favour of partition of British India.
Clarke Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 VD SAVARKAR'S IDEA was that if Muslims want a seperate nation than it shouldn't be built rite next to India. They should go find land in Middle east or somewhere. It was a terrific idea. Why would give them a land which is rite next to our land. Let them find a home in some other Arab state. He never wanted to break the nation into two. Who were we/our great grandparents (non-muslims) to give them land ? They lived there for ages and made a choice of their own. I say this because we were not a nation in 1947, just a British colony. We didn't have anti-secession laws or a constitution of ours and both options were on the table. Why does any of this matter now
straight.drive Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Diggi is pathetic,useless, brainless, immoral sickular joker. Those who believe him fully deserve the honour of immigration to the land of the pure.
Mariyam Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Veer Savarkar? Was the movie Savaria based on his life? Or was it the movie Veer?
Sachin=GOD Posted February 1, 2011 Author Posted February 1, 2011 Veer Savarkar? Was the movie Savaria based on his life? Or was it the movie Veer? None of them.
Baad Indian Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Not only have the Muslims got there separate nation but they are still living in India and form a major part here. Dont know what was the logic behind such a partition where they get there separate Land of pure and still continue to live in India . India should have been Muslim-free or else No-Partition should have happened .
straight.drive Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 In my opinion , partition had done good to india. How long can we handle brainless, violent and low-IQ tribal morons in areas bordeting afghanistan?
Recommended Posts