harmony
Posts:
59
Registered:
12/13/04
|
|
Re: gandi's drunkard son pray tell why you turned into a muslim
Posted:
Oct 5, 2009 1:27 PM
|
|
"Mirza Ghalib" <mghalib01@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33c22ee2-b14c-4091-af0b-578b306defc6@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> i will tell you one thing, and you can run your own checks and find out.
> i have talked about this with so many punjabi folks who were affected by
> partition. so far, not one has faulted mahatma for partition massacres.
> actually, i did find many who were very grateful that congress party had
> made accomodations for tens of thousands of them in dillie.
>
> when a leader produces results for masses consistently, the people will
> trust that leader for miracle. but things can go wrong along the way. it
> has
> happened in the story of freedom struggles of many countries, including
> usa.
> those nations don't come down on their leaders the way indians are doing.
>
> when india neared freedom, the expectations and the forward dynamics
> changed
> dramatically. it did not help that mahatma was a very very old man then.
> he
> used to say people in his own congress did not listen to him. people
> salivated at the prospects of power. there was no alternative to his
> leadership at the time although he wasn't the man for the moment.
> he did his best to stop partition. it did not work. so, there is a lesson
> to
> be learned there: muslims are a separate nation no matter what anybody
> says.
> now, if the people out there have learned that lesson, i would say
> partition
> wasn't a bad thing.
>
> it is not clear why murkah arindam would have problem with hari converting
> to islam in the first place because he grows twice in size when his
> shayaris
> are applauded by mommedans: his reason enough for a negative attitutde
> toward objective hindus is they won't buy his snake oil, and whom he must
> therefore call back stabbers.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> <<<If any credit is due, at least in Punjab, it should go to the RSS,
> who at tremendous risk rescued thousands of Punjabi Hindus and
> Sikhs from the perils, and brought them safely into India. It is
> ironical they are branded by the rulers of India as "communal" !>>>
>
> i agree. and i don't believe mahatma ever criticised self defence during
> partition. rss literature shows it considers mahatma as a great hero; why
> do
> you suppose rss, which is not shy about being polically incorrect, thinks
> ...
>
> read more »
Obviously you did not interview many Punjabis.
The most glaring example contradicting your view is that of
Madan Lal Pahwa. He had met Gandhi some time in December '47
or January '48, and lamented about his family in Punjab being
butchered before his eyes. Gandhi gave him some cockamamie
answers, something like universal love and Ahinsa, which I
tend to believe greatly upset him. I say that because he planted
a bomb designed for Gandhi about 10 days before Gandhi was
actually assassinated. The bomb did explode, but Gandhi escaped
unhurt.
Gandhi did discourage the refugees that were pouring into India
during 1946-47 from coming to India. Instead, his advice for
them was to "fight by Ahinsak means, armed only with moral
power, even if it could (certainly) mean death", or worse, especially
for the women. It is noteworthy that he offered the similar advice
to the British and the Jews of Europe.
Gandhi never studied history. He foolishly mistook common
courtesy as "goodwill." Add to that his utter stubbornness and
refusal to accept his own mistakes (there were many, some
very crucial). Scan Gandhi's sayings. Not in one place has
he criticized Muslims, even though they displayed their
predatory behavior, such as by Moplahs in Kerala, 1921-22.
However, he routinely blackmailed Hindus on absurd and
dangerous points, through his "purification" fasts.
I think Gandhi was trying to project himself to the Indian
people as another Jesus Christ, one who takes the sins of
others on his own shoulders. Perhaps he did succeed there,
because, like Christ, he too was assassinated.
-----------------------------
this problem is too sensitive to be trying to win an argument, and i am not
trying to do that. actually, i am as unhappy as the next guy with gandhiji
handling the problem of islam. so, i do not and can not disagree with your
comments. the only difference it seems to me is that you want to judge
gandhi only by his liberal atttiude toward islam; i am willing to judge him
with his overall role which was very necessary to an india which was
divested of hindu rule over a millenium. i am urging reality check, that's
all, which many are not willing to do because they don't like the reality.
so, i don't have any trouble agreeing with you on this, and i think i have
said as much. it is simply impractical to expect a man to change in his last
years, decades after his life mission of peace which most pepole in his
time -and now - regard as tremendous success.
clearly, he wasn't the man to lead on this tragedy of partition. to be sure,
the killings were done hugely on both sides nevertheless, gandhi or no
gandhi; more so in punjab which knew islam too well, and less so in bengal
because it was by then in firm grips of arindam's friends, the anti-hindu
commi propagandists (who had let it be kown, among many many other things,
that islam in bengal happened because of fair trading with arabs:):):)!!! ).
so, gandhi's so-called peace mission in bengal suited arindam's commie
friends just too well. they did not speak out against it, which they would
have if they had not agreed, being an accomplished propagandists that they
were and still are. so, i guess you can fault gandhi for not taking on
commies.
about the only point where i would probably defer is that i don't think he
was doing it with any motive to be christ or any political ambition. he did
not even celebrate the independence nor cared for power. clearly, he did not
understand islam - or understood too late; he did call muslims the ever
bullies. he did understand the missionaries quite well, and said he would
ban them if he had the power just for a day.
the viewpoint i have about the mahatma is pretty much the one konrad elst
has expressed in his wonderful book.
let's face it: the hindus did not know how to rule, and still do not know
how to rule. isn't that obvious?
nehru is on record having admitted that fact quite frankly to mt. batter,
isn't he, and retained the mount as the governor general even after
independence exactly because of that hindu incapacity to rule. but let's be
kind and say it was natural, for the hindus were out of power for way too
long. the incapacity still shows, look who is ruling india today. (you
gotta admit the weakness if you are to solve the problem, wouldn't you
agree?)
however, not-so-bright arindama has still not _unlearned_ nothing,
slobbering at islamic "brotherhood" for no reason than a clumsy cuwali
night. is it any wonder hindus in bagladesh still run away to india? and
they need visas for that!!!!!!
but let's recap in earnest: are you saying that mahatma's role in its
totality, not limiting to partition and islam, was irrelevant to india's
aspirations? if you do, let's hear it.
|
|
