PDA

View Full Version : Mahatma Gandhi exposed as a Racist :Congressional Record



Vaman
15 May 06,, 13:42
http://www.khalistan.com/images/CongRec12.gif
RACISM OF INDIAN FOUNDER EXPOSED
(Extensions of Remarks - December 13, 2005)

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005


Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, the unveiling of a statue of Mohandas K. Gandhi in Johannesburg, South Africa, set off a discussion about the anti-black racism of the founder of India.

When the eight-foot high Gandhi statue was unveiled, portraying him as a young human-rights lawyer, many leaders attacked Gandhi's anti-black statements. “Gandhi had no love for Africans,'' said one letter in The Citizen, a South African newspaper. “To him, Africans were no better than the `Untouchables' of India.''

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the dark-skinned aborigines of the subcontinent, known as Dalits or “Untouchables,'' occupy the lowest rung on the ladder of India's rigid and racist caste system. The caste system exists to protect the privileged position of the Brahmins, the top caste. Although it was officially banned by India's constitution in 1950, it is still strictly practiced in Hindu India.

Others have pointed out that Gandhi ignored the suffering of black people during the colonial occupation of South Africa. When he was arrested and forced to share a cell with black prisoners, he wrote that they were “only one degree removed from the animal.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, he described blacks as less than human. We condemn anyone who says this in our country, such as the Ku Klux Klan and others, as we should. Why is Gandhi venerated for such statements?

In addition, G.B. Singh, a Gandhi biographer, has looked through many pictures of him and never seen one single black person. Gandhi also attacked white Europeans.

Gandhi is honored as the founder of India. These statements and attitudes reveal the racist underpinning behind the secular, democratic facade of India. It explains a worldview that permits a Dalit constable to be stoned to death for entering the temple on a rainy day, that allows the murders of over 300,000 Christians in Nagaland, over 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab, Khalistan, over 90,000 Muslims in Kashmir, tens of thousands of Christians and Muslims elsewhere in the country, including Graham Staines and his two young sons, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and other minorities. It explains why the pro-Fascist, Hindu militant RSS is a powerful organization in India, in control of one of its two major political parties.

India must abandon its racist attitudes and its exploitation of minorities. It must allow the enjoyment of full human rights by everyone. Until it does so, we should stop our aid and trade with India. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the essence of democracy is the right to self-determination. India must allow self-determination for Kashmir, as it promised the United Nations in 1948, in Punjab, Khalistan, in Nagaland, and wherever the people seek to free themselves from the boot of Indian oppression. We should put this Congress on record in support of self-determination for the people of the subcontinent in the form of a free and fair plebiscite on the question of independence. Khalistan declared its independence on October 7, 1987. The people have never been allowed to have a simple, democratic vote on the matter. Instead, India continues to oppress the people there with over half a million troops.

Mr. Speaker, reporter Rory Carroll of The Guardian wrote an excellent article on the controversy about the Gandhi statue. I would like to place it in the Record at this time.

[The Guardian, Friday Oct. 17, 2003]

GANDHI BRANDED RACIST
AS JOHANNESBURG HONOURS FREEDOM FIGHTER
(By Rory Carroll)

It was supposed to honour his resistance to racism in South Africa, but a new statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Johannesburg has triggered a row over his alleged contempt for black people. The 2.5 metre high (8ft) bronze statue depicting Gandhi as a dashing young human rights lawyer has been welcomed by Nelson Mandela, among others, for recognising the Indian who launched the fight against white minority rule at the turn of the last century.

But critics have attacked the gesture for overlooking racist statements attributed to Gandhi, which suggest he viewed black people as lazy savages who were barely human.

Newspapers continue to publish letters from indignant readers: “Gandhi had no love for Africans. To [him], Africans were no better than the `Untouchables' of India,'' said a correspondent to The Citizen.

Others are harsher, claiming the civil rights icon “hated'' black people and ignored their suffering at the hands of colonial masters while championing the cause of Indians.

Unveiled this month, the statue stands in Gandhi Square in central Johannesburg, not far from the office from which he worked during some of his 21 years in South Africa.

The British-trained barrister was supposed to have been on a brief visit in 1893 to represent an Indian company in a legal action, but he stayed to fight racist laws after a conductor kicked him off a train for sitting in a first-class compartment reserved for whites.

Outraged, he started defending Indians charged with failing to register for passes and other political offences, founded a newspaper, and formed South Africa's first organised political resistance movement. His tactics of mobilising people for passive resistance and mass protest inspired black people to organise and some historians credit Gandhi as the progenitor of the African National Congress, which formed in 1912, two years before he returned to India to fight British colonial rule.

However, the new statue has prompted bitter recollections about some of Gandhi's writings.

Forced to share a cell with black people, he wrote: “Many of the native prisoners are only one degree removed from the animal and often created rows and fought among themselves.''

He was quoted at a meeting in Bombay in 1896 saying that Europeans sought to degrade Indians to the level of the “raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness''.

The Johannesburg daily This Day said GB Singh, the author of a critical book about Gandhi, had sifted through photos of Gandhi in South Africa and found not one black person in his vicinity.

The Indian embassy in Pretoria declined to comment, as it prepared for President Thabo Mbeki's visit to India.

Khulekani Ntshangase, a spokesman for the ANC Youth League, defended Gandhi, saying the critics missed the bigger picture of his immense contribution to the liberation struggle.

Gandhi's offending comments were made early in his life when he was influenced by Indians working on the sugar plantations and did not get on with the black people of modern-day KwaZulu-Natal province, said Mr. Ntshangase.

“Later he got more enlightened.''

http://www.khalistan.com/CongRecords/CR121305_Towns_RacismOfIndianFounderExposed.htm
================================================== =====
Disclaimers:
[1] All quoted text are views of the original authors only. Please check references for the source documents/text.

[2] All formatting other than the standard default text format have been made by me. This includes bold lettering, italicised text, underlined text and changes in size, colour and/or type of fonts etc. The formatting may NOT reflect formatting found in the source material.

[3] Fair Use Notice : This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance their understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and so on for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

alokindia2020
15 May 06,, 14:44
I think that u have forgotten wat American themsselves were to the Blacks!!! :eek:

Biggest racist ppl in the whole world!

And wat abt ur own country??

Shia-Sunni Conflict------Internal Racism of the worst kind


Dont be so hypocritical ok!! :frown: :eek:

Gandhi was a victim of racism wen he was chucked out of the train by 'White'!!

Get ur facts right 1st and then post

Dont post blindly!

Confed999
15 May 06,, 14:53
Biggest racist ppl in the whole world!
Well we tried, this was your third time. Goodbye...

Neo
15 May 06,, 15:29
Well we tried, this was your third time. Goodbye...
I was starting to like this WAB clown... :frown:

OrdinaryGuy
15 May 06,, 15:36
Lol.. this little known newspaper that isn't even mainstream has chewed up facts.

1) Its well known Mahatma Gandhi made a transformation from a rich, practising lawyer into a freedom figher

2) Mahatma gandhi towards his later years in South Africa campaigned against discrimination against blacks and started a non-violence movement there. If he was so racist towards blacks.. why did he care?

3) In India, Mahatma gandhi used to openly mix with people considered as outcastes.. in early 20th century India (which included Pakistan, btw).. He used to wear a simple dhoti and he fought for all men or women

South Africa has errected a memorial for Mahatma Gandhi.. if they truly thought he was racist.. they wouldn't have. That article takes a tiny comment Gandhi made during his younger years and magnifies it 10-fold

Also.. The article was written with obvious bias against India... Half the facts stated there and untrue.. If you want to know what through genocide, ethnical clensing and racism is.. look at Pakistan.. at independence Pakistan had a 15% minority community.. which is now less than 1%... shocking

lemontree
15 May 06,, 15:39
Vaman,
Since you have taken to posting articles from "Khalistan" propaganda sources, why leave out "dalitstan", they have some really good rib ticklers. :rolleyes:
On a serious note - you did not post your own comments regarding that articles. What is your opinion about the article?

OrdinaryGuy
15 May 06,, 15:40
Well we tried, this was your third time. Goodbye...


His point is completely valid. Only 30 years ago Blacks couldn't share toilets with White Americans throughout the US...

Vaman
15 May 06,, 15:45
Vaman,
Since you have taken to posting articles from "Khalistan" propaganda sources, why leave out "dalitstan", they have some really good rib ticklers. :rolleyes:

Well I did post a lot of Dalitstan threads. Please have a look at some of the previous threads.
They apparently have quite a following amongst a lot of the posters on WAB and elsewhere. :)

TopHatter
15 May 06,, 16:21
His point is completely valid. Only 30 years ago Blacks couldn't share toilets with White Americans throughout the US...
His point is irrelevent to why he was banned.
It's his presentation but most especially his track record that damned him.

platinum786
15 May 06,, 16:23
btw Vaman from what i recall is not Pakistani

Vaman
15 May 06,, 16:40
You are right. I am not a Pakistani. I never said I was.

Tronic
15 May 06,, 20:25
he's a Khalistani(a land which never has and never will exist...) :biggrin:

TopHatter
15 May 06,, 20:29
You are right. I am not a Pakistani. I never said I was.

he's a Khalistani(a land which never has and never will exist...) :biggrin:
At the risk of opening a can of worms....

Can somebody (politely!) tell about this Khalistan please?

Tronic
15 May 06,, 20:42
At the risk of opening a can of worms....

Can somebody (politely!) tell about this Khalistan please?
Khalistan is yet another partition of India which some "terrorists" who went to live abroad wish for... it is suppose to be a Sikh homeland which "terrorists" living abroad wish for... I myself being a Sikh am totally against such an absurd idea and so is any other Sikh living in India...

UnitedPakistan
15 May 06,, 20:44
Well we tried, this was your third time. Goodbye...
Why did you remove the royal belly dancer from our court? :biggrin:

TopHatter
15 May 06,, 20:45
Khalistan is yet another partition of India which some "terrorists" who went to live abroad wish for... it is suppose to be a Sikh homeland which "terrorists" living abroad wish for... I myself being a Sikh am totally against such an absurd idea and so is any other Sikh living in India...
So what is the "correct" name of this partition?
I am somewhat familiar with Sikhs, but these "terrorists" that are claiming this area as their own (did I get that right?), what is their ethic/religious background?

TopHatter
15 May 06,, 20:46
Why did you remove the royal belly dancer from our court? :biggrin:
See my post above:


His point is irrelevent to why he was banned.
It's his presentation but most especially his track record that damned him.

Asim Aquil
15 May 06,, 22:19
Sikhs fought for freedom back in the Indira gandhi age. She came down on them heavy and hard later on in the conflict.

The Sikhs were fighting for a separate homeland called Khalistan. They demanded Pakistan's Punjab and India's punjab to be formed as a separate Khalistan.

However Sher-e-Punjab told me that Pakistan's punjab's no longer on their agenda.

Most Sikhs you see out of India are Khalistani sikhs, they escaped Indira Gandhi's heavy hand.

Some Sikhs within India till date support Khalistan, others have made their peace. India's Prime Minister is a Sikh, I'm guessing he's a patriotic Indian and hopefully not a Khalistani.

The reservations I have with a Khalistan is that sooner or later, their eyes will turn to Pakistan too. The most important city to the sikhs historically was Lahore, the capital of Pakistan's Punjab, Pakistan's second largest city and just 10km from the border.

I would agree historically there have been great injustices with them. Starting from the split with Pakistan's Punjab and then the brutal from faced by the civillians as a result of the Khalistan movement by India's military.

Complex issue. Vaman however if I remember wasn't a Khalistani. Lets not talk people and talk subjects/topics.

Asim Aquil
15 May 06,, 22:32
Now my comment on Gandhi.

Gandhi often pondered about why Jinnah split from the Congress and presented many reasons for it. He never seemed to admit that it was HE who drove him away by bringing religion into politcs.

His methods, his talk of ahimsa, were all Hindu concepts and thus he was making an appeal to Hindu India, not to colonialized India. Jinnah warned Gandhi back when he was the biggest spokesperson in the Congress party, for the Hindu-Muslim unity. He warned him that do not bring religion into politics or this will bring a flood of changes into India.

This Ahimsa, Sachagra talk though nice on paper, to be used by the forefront fighters of freedom gave the warning that we're going to have a Hindu India.

Jinnah broke off, went to England to practice law. Allama Iqbal who used to write for ALL Indians to rise up and fight for freedom and defy the British Raj (rule). He slowly transformed his writings. The Muslim was then compared to eagles.

His immortal words:

Tu shaheen hai basera kar,
paharon ki chattano par!

Loosely translated:
You're an eagle, go build your nests on moutain peaks.

Jinnah was right. There was a flood. And Pakistan was formed.

But mind you Gandhi, though grossly mistaken, perhaps racist by today's standards, wasn't a bad man. He was just extremely wrong.

UnitedPakistan
15 May 06,, 22:35
Ohhh look at this!

Did you guys have anything similar when Jinnah died? :biggrin:


Pakistan mourns Gandhi

January 31. All Government offices remained closed here as Pakistan officially mourned the Indian leader Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was assassinated yesterday in New Delhi by a Hindu extremist from the RSSS. Gandhi and Jinnah remained proverbial antagonists for nearly three decades: differences on principles with Gandhi in 1920 put Jinnah on the path that eventually led to Pakistan. Jinnah's condolence message is untypically charged with emotions but carefully worded: "There can be no controversy in the face of death. Whatever our political differences, he was one of the greatest men produced by the Hindu community..."

Tronic
15 May 06,, 23:07
So what is the "correct" name of this partition?
I am somewhat familiar with Sikhs, but these "terrorists" that are claiming this area as their own (did I get that right?), what is their ethic/religious background?

there is no partition TH... these Sikh terrorists abroad want a nation carved out of Punjab, India... the problem is that Sikhs living in Punjab, India want no such thing... so the attitude here is that why let a couple of terrorist Sikhs living abroad ruin our future and the future of our children... we have no problems here in India... the main struggle of the average youth is not against the Indian government, the main struggle is to get a degree and build up a successful carreer... now these Sikhs living abroad are themselves living very cozily but they want to make life hell for us...

Tronic
15 May 06,, 23:10
and another thing... the biggest mistake is to make a nation in the name of religion... there has been no successful nation state which was built in the name of religion, although we have seen many nations who turned from "religious" into "secular" (Turkey as an example) have done exceedingly well...

UnitedPakistan
15 May 06,, 23:18
Israel...cough cough

Tronic
15 May 06,, 23:19
Sikhs fought for freedom back in the Indira gandhi age. She came down on them heavy and hard later on in the conflict.
Sikhs fought for freedom??? please, try to understand the political situation... Sikhs did not fight, politics in the country did, the leaders played around with people's religion...


The Sikhs were fighting for a separate homeland called Khalistan. They demanded Pakistan's Punjab and India's punjab to be formed as a separate Khalistan.
No they didn't... only a handful of hungry power grabbing terrorists did...


However Sher-e-Punjab told me that Pakistan's punjab's no longer on their agenda.

Most Sikhs you see out of India are Khalistani sikhs, they escaped Indira Gandhi's heavy hand.

Some Sikhs within India till date support Khalistan, others have made their peace. India's Prime Minister is a Sikh, I'm guessing he's a patriotic Indian and hopefully not a Khalistani.
Some Sikhs means less then 1% and the uneducated Sikhs (not all uneducated Sikhs) want Khalistan... apparently it is much easier to brainwash uneducated people...


The reservations I have with a Khalistan is that sooner or later, their eyes will turn to Pakistan too. The most important city to the sikhs historically was Lahore, the capital of Pakistan's Punjab, Pakistan's second largest city and just 10km from the border.
you need not worry Asim, because the Khalistani movement is dead... these bunch of clowns abroad can do nothing when the people in Punjab are against the creation of Khalistan...


I would agree historically there have been great injustices with them. Starting from the split with Pakistan's Punjab and then the brutal from faced by the civillians as a result of the Khalistan movement by India's military.

the only injustice faced by Sikhs was the dividing up of Punjab in 1947 during partition... the "brutality" faced by civillians??? The Army merely attacked terrorist positions and the civillians got caught in the cross-fire... how many times do I have to say that the general and the soldiers in Operation Bluestar were Sikhs??? I also provided pictorial evidence in that other post: Sikhs and Khalistan...


Complex issue. Vaman however if I remember wasn't a Khalistani. Lets not talk people and talk subjects/topics.
how the heck do you know if someone is Khalistani or not Asim??? the guy is posting anti-India articles from Khalistani sites... so what is he Asim??? an imposter that you are aware of???

TopHatter
15 May 06,, 23:51
there is no partition TH... these Sikh terrorists abroad want a nation carved out of Punjab, India... the problem is that Sikhs living in Punjab, India want no such thing..
Apologies, I misread what you wrote. I had thought you meant that it is (present tense) a partitioned part of India, rather than the specific goal of a certain group.

So just to restate: Punjab is a province or region of India. The majority of the population are Sikhs, but expatriate Sikhs living abroad feel the region would be better served as a seperate nation-state they wish to name Khalistan.

Is that it in a nutshell?

Apologies again, this time for being so dense.
I'm fairly geopolitically educated, but I'll readily admit that I've more of a Western-centric point of view.
(Which is not to say that I'm completely ignorant of Asia)

With our hopefully-fading "Troubles" here on the board, I'm wanting to get at least a cursory understanding of the "Troubles" in Pakistan, India et al.

Tronic
16 May 06,, 00:12
Apologies, I misread what you wrote. I had thought you meant that it is (present tense) a partitioned part of India, rather than the specific goal of a certain group.

So just to restate: Punjab is a province or region of India. The majority of the population are Sikhs, but expatriate Sikhs living abroad feel the region would be better served as a seperate nation-state they wish to name Khalistan.

Is that it in a nutshell?

basically, but the Sikhs living in India do not want a seperate from India because right now Punjab has one of the best qualities of life in the nation plus the highest GDP in India... so you can see, Sikhs in India are prosperous and happy, there is no need for a seperate homeland... I really loose it when some Sikh living abroad comes on these forums to boast about Khalistan... because partition is not an easy thing, and it is not them but us who are going to suffer, plus after partition imagine the corrupt religious government that will follow and then impose certain laws like you can't cut your hair... being taught the Guru Granth in school (Sikh holy book), and other freedoms snatched in the name of religion... and probably the most scariest of all... NO ALCOHOL!!!! :eek: this is the scariest of all since Punjab is the largest consumer of alcohol, lol... yes and well, we in Punjab just want to settle down get a good job and become richer then out fathers, lol... who has time to worry about political crap like Khalistan???



Apologies again, this time for being so dense.
I'm fairly geopolitically educated, but I'll readily admit that I've more of a Western-centric point of view.
(Which is not to say that I'm completely ignorant of Asia)

With our hopefully-fading "Troubles" here on the board, I'm wanting to get at least a cursory understanding of the "Troubles" in Pakistan, India et al.

hey, no problem, ure doing good... lol

TopHatter
16 May 06,, 00:34
basically, but the Sikhs living in India do not want a seperate from India
Right, I neglected to mention that part. :redface:

TopHatter
16 May 06,, 00:46
Sikhs fought for freedom back in the Indira gandhi age. She came down on them heavy and hard later on in the conflict.
The Sikhs were fighting for a separate homeland called Khalistan. They demanded Pakistan's Punjab and India's punjab to be formed as a separate Khalistan.
However Sher-e-Punjab told me that Pakistan's punjab's no longer on their agenda.
Most Sikhs you see out of India are Khalistani sikhs, they escaped Indira Gandhi's heavy hand.
Some Sikhs within India till date support Khalistan, others have made their peace. India's Prime Minister is a Sikh, I'm guessing he's a patriotic Indian and hopefully not a Khalistani.
Asim,
Do you have sources or proof for these statements (besides a complete assclown like Sher-e-Punjab) or are these your opinions?

Confed999
16 May 06,, 02:06
His point is completely valid. Only 30 years ago Blacks couldn't share toilets with White Americans throughout the US...
That America is the biggest racist people in the whole world? It is impossible that that is completely valid. Oh, and you're off by a few years on your US history. You can also find similar historys in every place that has more than one race. Either way, I would have popped him at that point if he had said the same about any country anywhere, he had plenty of chances.

Confed999
16 May 06,, 02:08
Why did you remove the royal belly dancer from our court? :biggrin:
I hope that wasn't a belly dancer, I really dig those ladies. :frown:

stone_cold
16 May 06,, 04:29
Two of the most influencial black leaders referred to Gandhi as their spiritual leader. Couple of their famous quotes.


Martin Luthar King (Jr) "Gandhi was inevitable. If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable. He lived, thought and acted,
inspired by the vision of humanity evolving towards world of peace and harmony. We may ignore Gandhi at our own risk."

Nelson Mandela "He dared to exhort nonviolence in a time when the violence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had exploded on us; he exhorted morality when science, technology and the capitalist order had made it redundant; he replaced self-interest with group interest without minimizing the importance of self."

Albert Einstein, the smartest scientist of the 20th century wrote this letter to Mahatma Gandhi
http://streams.gandhiserve.org/images/einstein_gandhi_letter.jpg
Translation:

Respected Mr. Gandhi !
I use the presence of your friend in our home to send you these lines. You have shown through your works, that it is possible to succeed without violence even with those who have not discarded the method of violence. We may hope that your example will spread beyond the borders of your country, and will help to establish an international authority, respected by all, that will take decisions and replace war conflicts.
With sincere admiration,
Yours A. Einstein.
I hope that I will be able to meet you face to face some day.

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 06:54
Asim,
Do you have sources or proof for these statements (besides a complete assclown like Sher-e-Punjab) or are these your opinions?
Only too many.

You've got to filter out using your own sense between Indian and sikh sources.

What I was searching right now to give you was this documentary I saw on Khalistan. Starts from Pak's Independence from the British, how the sikhs were fooled by the Hindu parties that Pakistan's a Muslim land and it would be wise to join with India instead.

Then it forwards to Bhindranwale (their militaristic leader) who organized the Khalistan army. Kind of militants if you ask me, India labels them as terrorists.

I must have it on my hard drive can't find a link... Read! :P www.google.com

I just gave Sher-e-Punjab's reference for that one claim that they've abandoned the fight for Pakistan's Punjab. Being a Khalistani he can at least give a Khalistani opinion.

Jay
16 May 06,, 07:26
India didnt have to fool or trick Sikhs to join India. Infact those sikhs from Pakistan wantedly moved back to India than die in persuction in Pakistan. No body tricked the thusands of Sikhs in Indian defence forces. Historically, sikhs consider hindus as their brothers and muslims as their foes.

So Asim, you are way off with your google video mania.

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 07:32
But then the Khalistan movement happened.

Karthik
16 May 06,, 07:38
Gandhi was an icon of hope during a time when the world had to bear with some of the most potent icons of evil.

Those who belittle Gandhi and call him a racist are unworthy of comment.

Jay
16 May 06,, 07:39
My source...

From Wikipedia..

In 1675, Aurangzeb publicly executed the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur. Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed himself to protect Hindus, after Kashmiri pandits came to him for help when the Emperor condemned them to death for failing to convert to Islam. This marked a turning point for Sikhism. His successor, Guru Gobind Singh further militarised his followers (see Khalsa). After Aurangzeb killed four of Gobind Singh's sons, Gobind Singh sent Aurangzeb the Zafarnama (Notification of Victory).


The Punjab state in India had seen the rate of murder and overall crime rise in the early 1980's. This was in large part due to the conflict between the militant Sikhs and the secular government of India. Many Sikhs felt that the Punjab was being discriminated against. The distrust between the Militant Sikhs and the government grew. Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale had become the voice of the minority of Sikhs who were for militancy against the government.


See Also: Partition of India Baldev Singh once again represented the Sikh community, this time on the Partition Council, which on the basis of the plan written by V.P. Menon and Lord Louis Mountbatten, would partition British India into two independent, self-governing dominions of the British Empire: India and Pakistan.

The Sikh community feared that partition would leave the Sikhs people a small minority in both Pakistan and India, and worried of the violence and deprivation of rights which might victimize them. But the violence of 1946-47 where thousands of people in the Punjab had been killed, made the Sikh leaders unwilling to co-exist with a Muslim majority and had acquiesced to the partition of the province. And given assurances by Congress leaders that India would protect its religious minorities under a secular, democratic Constitution, the Sikhs backed India and partition.

Remember, you are yet to show us a neutral proof which says that India and its leaders enticed the Sikhs to move back to India.

To till date India is still a secular republic, the way our founding fathers wanted.

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 07:40
He wasn't a Mahatma (a godly title if I'm not mistaken). He made a mistake by substituting the freedom fight into a Hindu fight.

“I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian”
-- Mohandas Gandhi.

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 07:43
TH & others:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5924930429066348858&q=khalistan

OrdinaryGuy
16 May 06,, 07:49
That America is the biggest racist people in the whole world? It is impossible that that is completely valid. Oh, and you're off by a few years on your US history. You can also find similar historys in every place that has more than one race. Either way, I would have popped him at that point if he had said the same about any country anywhere, he had plenty of chances.

Confed999, I was born in the US.. studied most of my life in the US and did my college there.. I know american history :) And you are wrong when you say many other countries have similar histories.. The racial divide was somewhat prevalent into the early 80s too (even though discrimination was abolished in the early 70s)... You saw the sort of division that existed in the US probably only in South Africa... However it did last much longer in South Africa...

Current day America is probably one of the most tolerant and multi-cultural societies around. More tolerant than Asian societies in my book

But back in 60s and 70s... things were very different. My parents immigrated to the US during those times...

As for popping alokwhatever.. I have no issue with that. But he wasn't wrong :)

Jay
16 May 06,, 07:49
He wasn't a Mahatma (a godly title if I'm not mistaken). He made a mistake by substituting the freedom fight into a Hindu fight.

“I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian”
-- Mohandas Gandhi.

Mahatma - Maha Aatma, a great soul. How is it a godly title? Millions and millions of people regardless of race, creed or color adored this person, hence was called as Mahatma.

Why cant a hindu be Mahatma?? Should he be atheist or muslim to be called so?


"Hinduism as I know it entirely satisfies my soul, fills my whole being ... When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, and when I see not one ray of light on the horizon, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me; and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. My life has been full of tragedies and if they have not left any visible and indelible effect on me, I owe it to the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita".


"Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison d'etre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty". (source: his autobiography)

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side".

"The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind".

Later in his life when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied:

"Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew".

Now go figure. You are blowing his quote out of proportion.

Karthik
16 May 06,, 07:53
He wasn't a Mahatma (a godly title if I'm not mistaken). He made a mistake by substituting the freedom fight into a Hindu fight.

“I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian”
-- Mohandas Gandhi.

One wouldn't expect a sick mind to understand the true meaning of Mahatma.

He fought tirelessly against riots targetting the Moslems in Calcutta and was against the partition of India on the basis of religion.

Your knowledge of Gandhi, of history in particular, seems to be woefully inadequate and filled with interpretations of selective bigotry.

Mahatma is the Sanksrit word for 'great soul'.

OrdinaryGuy
16 May 06,, 07:55
“I am a Hindu and therefore a true Indian”
-- Mohandas Gandhi.


And yes.. you conveniently ignore the fact that Mahatma Gandhi was very much against the division of India on the basis of religion. He considered muslims as much as Indians as Hindus.. He rallied muslims together in the freedom struggle..

Gandhi was one of the many leaders that preached India to be a secular democracy compared to a theocratic state pakistan began..

Dude.. Pakistan has systematically eliminated its minorities... 15 to 20% of you popular was minority in the 50s.. its now less than 1%.. Pakistan Kashmir is almost 100% muslim... it has 30% hindus after independence..

Its funny you never condemn the fact that millions of muslims were raped and killed by the pakistani army during the 1970s genocide in Bangladesh

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 07:56
As I've said he was not a bad man, and only racist by todays standards.

What I've accused Gandhi of bringing Hinduism into the freedom struggle. The Hindu Nationalism! He parralleled, the Indian Nationality with the Hindu religion. Jinnah who was a part of the Congress party the chief spokesperson for Hindu-Muslim unity, then broke off.

Karthik
16 May 06,, 07:57
After Gandhi's death, Albert Einstein said of Gandhi: "Generations to come will scarcely believe that such a one as this walked the earth in flesh and blood." He also once said," I believe that Gandhi's views were the most enlightened of all the political men in our time. We should strive to do things in his spirit: not to use violence in fighting for our cause, but by non-participation in anything you believe is evil."

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi)

OrdinaryGuy
16 May 06,, 07:59
Gandhi never made Hinduism the mantra of the freedom struggle.. That is ******** propogated by Pakistanis like you... Jinnah never gained the sort of international recognition that Gandhi did.. i know that irks Pakistanis..

Jinnah very viciously fought for the communal division of India and Pakistan. most of the world recognises him for that

Gandhi fought for the integration of a united India.. home for both hindus and muslims.. He condemned Hindu-muslim riots and fought for the freedom of all men... whatever caste or religion.

Calling him racist only shows how insecure the ideology of Pakistan is

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 08:02
I know what Mahatma means, and Mahatma is an honorary title related with Brahiminism.

The fact that Jinnah was booed for just calling him Mr. Gandhi by the hindus speak volumes of how intricate Gandhi made politics the freedom struggle, with religion.


And yes.. you conveniently ignore the fact that Mahatma Gandhi was very much against the division of India on the basis of religion. He considered muslims as much as Indians as Hindus.. He rallied muslims together in the freedom struggle..

Indeed he was! (no sarcasm). Except for your last part where you say he rallied Muslims together in the freedom struggle. Before Jinnah split up and then returned to India, Gandhi's freedom struggle was a Hindu freedom struggle.

He indeed didn't want a partition. No denying that. But he was the one that sidelined the Muslims.

Please try to understand, I call Gandhi wrong not evil.

Karthik
16 May 06,, 08:04
I dont want to get into another brawl here in this thread.

But before I go, I hope everyone here notices how one person in this thread has said



As I've said he was not a bad man, and only racist by todays standards

So being racist supposedly does not make you a bad man. New insights!

This person has lost even the teensiest of respect that I had for him.

I'm out of this thread.

Confed999
16 May 06,, 08:09
And you are wrong when you say many other countries have similar histories..
Well, lets think about that. Europe? Yes, they have had racism and/or discrimination, sometimes resulting in exterminations. Asia? Yes, they have had racism and/or discrimination, sometimes resulting in exterminations. Africa? I don't even have to answer that one, you can see it on the news today. Can you actually name, lets say, 5 countries with even somewhat diverse populations, who have not had a bout of racism and/or discrimination? Harder than you figured huh?

You saw the sort of division that existed in the US probably only in South Africa... However it did last much longer in South Africa...
Much of Europe made a profession out of subjecting one peoples or another for longer than there has been an America, or South Africa. ;)

But he wasn't wrong :)
It seems to me you think he was...
"Current day America is probably one of the most tolerant and multi-cultural societies around."
Just to refresh your memory, he said: "Biggest racist ppl in the whole world!" about America. That is the opposite of what you just said.

OrdinaryGuy
16 May 06,, 08:09
Indeed he was! (no sarcasm). Except for your last part where you say he rallied Muslims together in the freedom struggle. Before Jinnah split up and then returned to India, Gandhi's freedom struggle was a Hindu freedom struggle.

He indeed didn't want a partition. No denying that. But he was the one that sidelined the Muslims.
.

That is complete bull sh!t and you know it.. Gandhi NEVER EVER EVER made the freedom struggle the struggle of hinduism or any religion

You are SOOO WRONG. The congress party had many muslim leaders during the freedom struggle.. And Gandhi always rallied all Indians to the call of freedom.. whatever their religion was

Point to one recognised international source that shows Gandhi play religious politics.. No crap written by Pakistanis please..

Confed999
16 May 06,, 08:14
So being racist supposedly does not make you a bad man.
I'm not sure just being racist makes you bad, it may, but I do know it doesn't mean you can't do good things.

Confed999
16 May 06,, 08:15
Point to one recognised international source that shows Gandhi play religious politics..
I'd prefer a transcript. ;)

OrdinaryGuy
16 May 06,, 08:28
a History lesson on Mahatma Gandhi



Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Gujarati: મોહનદાસ કરમચંદ ગાંધી) October 2, 1869 – January 30, 1948) was a major political and spiritual leader of India, and the Indian independence movement. He was the pioneer[1] and perfector of Satyagraha — the resistance of tyranny through mass civil disobedience strongly founded upon ahimsa (total non-violence), which led India to independence, and has inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. Gandhi is commonly known and addressed in India and across the world as Mahatma Gandhi (from Sanskrit, Mahatma: Great Soul) and as Bapu (in many Indian languages, Father).

An English-educated lawyer, Gandhi first employed his ideas of peaceful civil disobedience in the Indian community's struggle for civil rights in South Africa. Upon his return to India, Gandhi organized poor farmers and labourers in India to protest oppressive taxation and extensive discrimination, and carried it forward on the national stage to protest oppressive laws made by the British Raj. Becoming the leader of the Indian National Congress, Gandhi led a nationwide campaign for the alleviation of the poor, for the liberation of Indian women, for brotherhood amongst communities of differing religions and ethnicity, for an end to untouchability and caste discrimination, and for the economic self-sufficiency of the nation, but above all for Swaraj — the independence of India from foreign domination. Gandhi famously led Indians in the disobedience of the salt tax through the 400 kilometer (248 miles) Dandi Salt March in 1930, and in an open call for the British to Quit India in 1942. He was imprisoned for many years on numerous occasions in South Africa and India.

Throughout his life, Gandhi remained committed to non-violence and truth even in the most extreme situations. Gandhi was a student of Hindu philosophy and lived simply, organizing an ashram that was self-sufficient in its needs. He made his own clothes — the traditional Indian dhoti and shawl, woven with a charkha — and lived on a simple vegetarian diet. He used rigorous fasts — abstaining from food and water for long periods — for self-purification as well as a means of protest.

...

On the day of the transfer of power, Gandhi did not celebrate independence with the rest of India, but was alone in Calcutta, mourning the partition and working to end the violence. After India's independence, Gandhi focused on Hindu-Muslim peace and unity. He conducted extensive dialogue with Muslim and Hindu community leaders, working to cool passions in northern India, as well as in Bengal. Despite the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, he was troubled when the Government decided to deny Pakistan the Rs. 55 crores due as per agreements made by the Partition Council. Leaders like Sardar Patel feared that Pakistan would use the money to bankroll the war against India.




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Mohandas_Gandhi_resized_for_biography.jpg/180px-Mohandas_Gandhi_resized_for_biography.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi

OrdinaryGuy
16 May 06,, 08:31
I know what Mahatma means, and Mahatma is an honorary title related with Brahiminism.



Yeah.. make up your own crap



Mahatma
The word Mahatma, while often mistaken for Gandhi's given name in the West, is taken from the Sanskrit words maha meaning Great and atma meaning Soul. The title "Mahatma" was first accorded to Gandhi on January 21, 1915 by his pioneer supporter Nautamlal Bhagavanji Mehta at the Kamribai School in Jetpur, Gujarat, India (in the erstwhile princely state of Kathiawad). In his autobiography, Gandhi nevertheless explains that he never felt worthy of the honour.[25] According to the manpatra, the name Mahatma was given in response to Gandhi's admirable sacrifice in manifesting justice and truth.[26]

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 08:34
I dont want to get into another brawl here in this thread.
What brawl man? It's health discussion of History. We all do know how both our countries tend to distort history and present it.


But before I go, I hope everyone here notices how one person in this thread has said

So being racist supposedly does not make you a bad man. New insights!

Yes its a complex issue. Being racist from todays standards means where you have to be extremely PC about everything. Gandhi, meant no evil. He just made many blunders,when it came to keeping India united. Even when he was preaching unity he kept harping about Hindy symbols of Ahimsa, Sachagra, etc. He did not use enough foresight, and just never imagined a division of India was possible.


This person has lost even the teensiest of respect that I had for him.

I'm out of this thread.

Sorry to have offended you, but those are my opinions on Gandhi which I've supported with quotes and can back up with a whole lot more.

SA History is one of my favorite topics.

Jay
16 May 06,, 08:36
I know what Mahatma means, and Mahatma is an honorary title related with Brahiminism.

There are 3 posts in this and last page which talks about the meaning of Mahatma, yet you are slandering. You are just trying to raise the passions and flame this thread.

Is it that hard for you to understand the meaning of Mahatma, when you claim that you know hindi and urdu??

lemontree
16 May 06,, 08:39
TH & others:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5924930429066348858&q=khalistan
You always live up to your credentials of being a terrorist supporter or maybe you are too gullible and get carried away by onesided stories.

Jay
16 May 06,, 08:42
Even when he was preaching unity he kept harping about Hindy symbols of Ahimsa, Sachagra, etc. He did not use enough foresight, and just never imagined a division of India was possible.

SA History is one of my favorite topics.

Seems to me that you are severely lacking knowledge in your fave topic. Ahimsa and satyagraha has nothing to do with hindusim. May be if those words were in Arabic you wouldve understand better.

Ahimsa means non violence (a-himsa), if hinduism alone preaches non violence you cant mistake Gandhi for that.

Satyagraha means Satya (truth) and Agraha means to do (its plain hindi), meaning Do the truth. Now if you do you see hinduism in these 2 words, it aint Gandhi's or Hindus fault but your own.

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 08:46
Perhaps calling it a godly title was wrong, as you've explained its meaning is similar to Mahan Aatma.

Mahan = Glorious?
Aatma = Spirit.

Fine perhaps calling it Godly was wrong. But it is a Hindu Brahiminism honorary title:
http://www.answers.com/mahatma&r=67


Mahatma Hinduism. Used as a title of respect for a person renowned for spirituality and high-mindedness.

The noun mahatma has one meaning:

Meaning #1: (Hinduism) term of respect for a Brahmin sage

mahatma (məhăt'mə, –hät'–) [Sanskrit,=great-souled], honorific title used in India among Hindus for a person of superior holiness. Mohandas Gandhi is the best-known figure to whom the title was applied.

The reason I mention its religious significance is that Hindus insisted that he be referred as Mahatma and just Mr. Gandhi was a result.

By comparison Jinnah did not even want the title of Quaid-e-Azam (Greatest Leader) that we accord him. His quote:

“I have lived as plain Mr. Jinnah and I hope to die as plain Mr. Jinnah. I am very much averse to any title or honours and I will be more than happy if there was no prefix to my name.”
-- Mohammad Ali Jinnah

I like to guess that he had that incident in mind where he couldn't call Gandhi Mr. Gandhi! But only God knows best.

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 08:51
LT, I am neither for nor against the Khalistani movement. Just providing links for a claim I had made earlier.

Jay
16 May 06,, 08:56
And how do you know that Gandhi liked himself to be called Mahatma??


In his autobiography, Gandhi nevertheless explains that he never felt worthy of the honour.[25] According to the manpatra, the name Mahatma was given in response to Gandhi's admirable sacrifice in manifesting justice and truth.[26]

And just coz Jinnah never wanted to be called Quaid does that stopped you guys from addressing the same?? Now if that aint Jinnah's fault, how come calling Mahatma is Gandhi's fault??

For the "n"th time, Maha Aatma has mutiple meanings, but the most accepted one is a great soul not becoz he followed hindusim, but becoz he followd non violence and fought for truth.

And if you still harp that its a honorary brahminc title, tell me how many other Brahmins were called Mahatma.

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 09:07
Fair enough... I've laid my argument as what were the effects of Gandhi's Hindu politics.

What your position is on Mahatma or what mine is, is irrelevant.

Ray
16 May 06,, 09:08
I did not wish to enter into a discussion since I find the posts of certain individuals ingenuously attempting to flame or could it be that it is well established that they have no education, least of all in history.

In so far as Sikhs are concerned, their contribution to India is well established. Nonetheless, it should be remembered that even a cursory glance at Indian history will indicate the torture they have endured at the hands of the Moslems to include the gruesome walling up of the Guru's son for the defiance not to convert to Islam!
http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/martyrs/sahibzade.html

It would be not too tiresome an exercise if one just googles for the Sikh history.

In so far as Khalistan is concerned, it is well established fact that it was a part of Zia's bleeding India with a 1000 cuts and was in conjunction with what he started in Kashmir.

It is for western audiences to understand, if Khalistan was such a burning issue, then Punjab would be in flames. It may be of interest to note that there has been no incident of militancy there! Is it not interesting that Sikhs whose sons could be walled up by the inhuman Moslems are peaceable in India in an era where Human Rights rules the day?

If Khalistan was such a burning issue, then isn't it extraordinary for India to have a Sikh Prime Minister (i.e. Head of State), a Sikh Chief of the Army Staff (who can carry out coups in the same manner as Pakistan's Chiefs of the Army Staff have been doing innumerous time), or having the Indian economy being dictated by yet another Sikh, Montek Singh Ahluwalia? These are but of a few Sikhs who are charting the destiny of India.

What is the answer to India have two Regiments (21 Batttlaion each i.e. 42 Battalions) of the Indian Army (Sikh and Sikh LI) exclusively for the Sikhs and one Regiment with 50% of Sikhs (PUNJAB of which two battalions of that 100% Sikh) as also in JAK LI (33% of Sikhs)

If indeed Sikhs were against India would the country be handed over to the Sikhs to include its military?

Just think it over.

I am surprised such propaganda of Kahlistan is allowed by WAB with impunity, especially when they claim to be fair!

It is time for those who are unaware of the ground realities to address the issue and check the facts and stop this unfettered abuse of the forum since those who could have rebutted have been systematically eliminated through bans. One may not be conversant with foreign history, but one cannot claim ignorance of ground realities if they indeed read newspapers.

In so far as Mahatma Gandhi is concerned, again tongue in cheek snides are being bandied.

If indeed he was a racists, I wonder if certain flame experts who still continue to be on the forum, could answer why he worked, ate and stayed with the so called dalits when they cry them hoarse about India being caste oriented. Please note that casteism must have been greater when Mahatma Gandhi lived.

I could have returned the compliment with a treatise on Jinnah and his pork eating and wine drinking ways and the fact why he married out of the religion and married a Parsi, but then I rather give it the go by.

Lastly, if banning of a person at a drop of a hat is because he found America racists and while that may not be universal but it does exists, isn't it interesting that certian individuals can still continue to tweak history and facts and yet go scot free? I wonder what the reason could be. Is it because of lack of knowledge?

Much that I thought I would stay away on a sabbatical, but since I have been on this forum, I would like to ensure that ill founded tripe is not rampantly purveyed as its staple.

I sure would like western observers to answer


It is for western audiences to understand, if Khalistan was such a burning issue, then Punjab would be in flames. It may be of interest to note that there has been no incident of militancy there! Is it not interesting that Sikhs whose sons could be walled up by the inhuman Moslems are peaceable in India in an era where Human Rights rules the day?

If Khalistan was such a burning issue, then isn't it extraordinary for India to have a Sikh Prime Minister (i.e. Head of State), a Sikh Chief of the Army Staff (who can carry out coups in the same manner as Pakistan's Chiefs of the Army Staff have been doing innumerous time), or having the Indian econmy being dictated by yet another Sikh, Montek Singh Ahluwalia? These are but of a few Sikhs who are charting the destiny of India.

In it lies the verity of existence and the truth about Khalistan.

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 09:17
Hmmm these have been narrated by his friends or family (I'm not sure but perhaps Fatima Ali Jinnah), and weren't spoken in public:

"Mr. Gandhi is an extraordinary man who believes in his own mission. But the clothes, this imitation of the hindu peasants, the spinning wheels, the bits and pieces of sanskrit philosophy, Ahimsa, Sachagrah, he is calling forth a flood".

"Would it stop there? What else would they demand... If they succeed in kicking out the British if they've usurped power in India, would then their attention turn to the Muslims?"

"We're not outsiders... We have no England to go back to"

edit: Since I'm trying to be factual and not mislead anyone, let me add "Paraphrased", till I don't find something better off google. Just these last three quotes.

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 09:23
I think people should treat Jinnah and Gandhi as topics of interest and not take it personally. I don't mind a heated debate on Jinnah too, than to just simply use numerical advantage to pin Jinnah as the worst leader of Sout Asia, where the opposite may just be true.

WAB IS about debate.

Confed999
16 May 06,, 09:35
since those who could have rebutted have been systematically eliminated through bans.
One can come back on Friday, the other went too far. It's not like we wanted to do it...

if banning of a person at a drop of a hat is because he found America racists
By that point if he had said "[insert name of country here] was the biggest bunch of racists in the world" he would have been gone. He had been warned multiple times. We did all we could to keep him around.

I sure would like western observers to answer
I can see that. And I can see that Asim has failed to provide anything substantial to back up his claims. I'd have to say that "your" side is winning the debate.

Ray
16 May 06,, 09:38
I can see that. And I can see that Asim has failed to provide anything substantial to back up his claims. I'd have to say that "your" side is winning the debate.

I am afraid there is no "my" side or "their" side.

The only side anyone should be on is TRUTH and FACTS.

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 09:40
I can see that. And I can see that Asim has failed to provide anything substantial to back up his claims. I'd have to say that "your" side is winning the debate.

Thats it! It's a debate!

Are we talking about Khalistan or Gandhi? If its Khalistan, I've really never supported Khalistan nor have been against India on that. I did provide video evidence about all the arguments I made however.

But my comments on Gandhi are completely backed up!

Confed999
16 May 06,, 09:47
I am afraid there is no "my" side or "their" side.

The only side anyone should be on is TRUTH and FACTS.
Then simply rebutt his arguments, as you have done, with either logic or evidence.

Ray
16 May 06,, 09:55
Leave him be.

Take him on on facts.

Remember, what Snipe said and what his countryman Mark Twain had said:

“Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them the rest of us could not succeed.”

Garuda
16 May 06,, 09:56
In this Gandhi bash & love fest, I'll throw my 2 cents.

The larger than life image of Gandhi nurtured by ruling Congress over the years has made it impossible for anyone to do an impassionate analysis of the man's actions.

To cut the long story short; Mahatma is not the label he deserved, albeit the line of reasoning are different here.

Asim: Bete, whenever your post something try to back it up with credible sources.

Anyway, Gandhi's list of omissions is long, Khilafat movement to appease Muslims, his stand on Moplah riots in Kerala (where entire Hindu households were butchered), sidelining of Netaji etc.
And he was the one to oppose Jinnah and Patels idea of complete population exchange (all Hindus to India and all Muslims to Pakistan).

However, the most idiotic and mischeivious action of his was the fast in Kolkata to blackmail Bengali Hindus. Rioting stopped, but results are now visible. Bengal has one of the highest of Muslim percentage (+30% as compared to national average of 15%) and on the other hand there is a continuos entry of Hindus fleeing from Bangladesh(for Westerners info erstwhile East Pakistan).

My grandparents had to flee Dhaka with just personal belongings, due to "direct action". Gandhi's idiocy ensured that he had neither the intelligence to gauge Jinnahs actions nor had the minimum decency to allow level headed among the INC leadership to organize the Hindus in Muslim majority areas for self defence.

Look at Punjab on other hand, population on both the sides are relatively homogenous and hence you have lesser communal tensions.

For once, I'm in agreement with the Pakistan posters here that the partition was the best thing to happen.

An unified India with roughly equal Hindu-Muslim populations riots would have been a commonplace, leading to bloody civil war.

Can't say about Pakistanis how they feel, but as an Indian my feeling has we've lost 40% of our land and yet we are burdened with a community that demanded for such division. It is a two way loss.

If Gandhi had the real vision then the leading elite would have the support to devise a clean break i.e. bargaining realtive social homogenity for loss of land. Gandhi's mistake (and his protege Nehru's) will keep hauting us for years to come.

kNikS
16 May 06,, 10:01
It seems to me that this thread is another example of malicious revisionism. Simply putting an undisputable counterargument (historical fact) would make this thread pointless. And it seems to be that there are several such counterarguments here.

Garuda
16 May 06,, 10:04
It seems to me that this is another example of malicious revisionism. Simply putting an undisputable counterargument (historical fact) would make this thread pointless. And it seems to be that there are several such counterarguments here.
Would you mind explaining that? Thanks!

kNikS
16 May 06,, 10:08
Would you mind explaining that? Thanks!
Oh sorry - I was reffering to thread, not your post. I started reply before you posted.

Garuda
16 May 06,, 10:12
Oh sorry - I was reffering to thread, not your post. I started reply before you posted.
Never, mind :)

Vaman
16 May 06,, 10:57
Vaman however if I remember wasn't a Khalistani. Lets not talk people and talk subjects/topics.
Please speak for youself. I dont mind it at all.


At the risk of opening a can of worms....
Can somebody (politely!) tell about this Khalistan please?

I think I posted it on another thread as well. Let me repeat:
"Khalis": Pure
"land" : Land
Khalistan : Something whose literal meaning is now banned on WAB.

As for Khalistan itself, no one really knows the genesis of the problem. Of the many conjectures and theories, the one I find most plausible is economic. Local industrial and agrarian economies in many parts of India had collapsed under the british rule leading to famines. Post independence, these famines disappeared largely because of massive redistribution of foodgrains by the then quasi-socialist administration. Punjab (the state the most sikhs hail from) however had been seeing record harvests, largely due to large tracts of fertile land and water supplies from 3 rivers. This meant that excess foodgrain in Punjab was being sold to the federal govt at low govt controlled prices.
Some of sikhs saw this as a attempt to deprive them of their prosperity. This coupled with some other reasons such as failure to recognise the sikh language and its script as seperate entities and refusal to accord the sikh faith the same status - as say islam - led some to believe in a plot to undermine the sikhs in India.
The movement soon took on undertones of racial and religious chauvinism. Hence the name "Khalistan" - a demand for a seperate sikh state that had been cleansed of the rest of the "impures".
As with any of the other good freedom fighters they have been accused of many things - assasination of the Indian Prime minister, bombing of several buses and trains[link (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE2D6133CF933A2575BC0A96F9482 60) ], the downing of AirIndia jet to Canada [link1 (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1912030&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312) ][link2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4464578.stm) ] and so on. Ofcourse it is entirely possible that these acts were actually performed by the Indian government and its military and spy agancies.

In any case the only proponents of Khalistan today exist only in the UK, US and Canada, their prominence in that order. Khalistan infact enjoyed a great deal of support in the US congress which seems to have died out a little since 9/11.

TopHatter
16 May 06,, 13:47
I am surprised such propaganda of Kahlistan is allowed by WAB with impunity, especially when they claim to be fair!

It is time for those who are unaware of the ground realities to address the issue and check the facts and stop this unfettered abuse of the forum


WAB IS about debate.

Correct. This is a debating and discussion forum, not an encyclopedia.

If Person A posts something that Person B knows to be wrong, then it is entirely imcumbant upon Person B to refute Person A with his own facts and sources.
But WAB is also about opinions and once again, if Person B feels that Person A's opinion is ill-founded, then he can say something, again with his own facts and sources.


Lastly, if banning of a person at a drop of a hat is because he found America racists

Alokindia was hardly banned at the "drop of a hat" like some capricious whim on Confed's part. Neither were Srirangen and Gautem by me for that matter.

As for Alokindia, as I explained yesterday:

"His point is irrelevent to why he was banned.
It's his presentation but most especially his track record that damned him."

In addition - after the fact - Alokindia choose to bet that paisa that I specifically warned him about.

Officer of Engineers
16 May 06,, 14:05
There's debate and then there's flamebait and for a journalist (unless one talks about tabloid journalism) who spouts Khalistan is alive and well when the blatant fact that the Sikh community within India is thriving, economically and politically is downright irresponsible journalism at its best and just pure flamebaiting at its worst.

I'm getting more and more insulted that by using our ignorance (us non-South Asians), Asim has been putting flamebaits through using much more pilote language. On this one issue, I know he is pure BS. Khalistan supporters are large in Canada and breaking our laws. Air India happenned on my shores.

How much money was raised by Canadian Khalistan "charities" were actually sent back to the Sikh community in India? Zero.

Goes to show how alive and well Khalistan is in South Asia.

This is not the 1st time Asim has posted flamebait in the guise of news reporting. I've caught him on the supposed GC violations at Gitmo and I've caught him here.

He's using our ignorance pure and simple. We've made a mistake, people. It's now time to do the hard thing and fix it.

bull
16 May 06,, 14:23
, his stand on Moplah riots in Kerala (where entire Hindu households were butchered),.

Prove this!!!

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 14:53
There's debate and then there's flamebait and for a journalist (unless one talks about tabloid journalism) who spouts Khalistan is alive and well when the blatant fact that the Sikh community within India is thriving, economically and politically is downright irresponsible journalism at its best and just pure flamebaiting at its worst.

Journalist == me or journalist == the writer of the article in the first post?

Talk about Khalistan wasn't originated by me. TH asked can "somebody" explan Khalistan to him. He also said politely.


I'm getting more and more insulted that by using our ignorance (us non-South Asians), Asim has been putting flamebaits through using much more pilote language. On this one issue, I know he is pure BS. Khalistan supporters are large in Canada and breaking our laws. Air India happenned on my shores.

Correct me if I'm wrong OOE, I didn't comment on their civic behavior in Canada. I know nothing of that. I've met Sikhs in the US, they're cool people there. Or you meant Khalistani sikhs only? Ok if you say so!


Goes to show how alive and well Khalistan is in South Asia.

I started by saying:

"Sikhs fought for freedom back in the Indira gandhi age. She came down on them heavy and hard later on in the conflict."

Past tense.

Then I said that some sikhs still support the Khalistan movement as per how Khalistanis claim it to be. I also said:

"You've got to filter out using your own sense between Indian and sikh sources."

I think it makes sense to use your my own brain once in a while after reading sources from two sides up against each other.


This is not the 1st time Asim has posted flamebait in the guise of news reporting. I've caught him on the supposed GC violations at Gitmo and I've caught him here.

Self-declared victory from a guy who is not even fighting for a cause? LOL!


He's using our ignorance pure and simple. We've made a mistake, people. It's now time to do the hard thing and fix it.

A question was ASKED, I did not go hunting for TH to cast my voodoo enslavement spell on him.

Gimme a break, will ya?

If you want to REALLY debate with me, pick on the SA Partitioning issue? I am pretty well versed with that and hold deep interests. You aren't going to drag me into a war I don't care much for. Just your persisted attacks, needed a reply so here it is.

Garuda
16 May 06,, 15:09
Prove this!!!
In these days of Google, one needs not really go for a verbal duel. Just google Gandhi+Moplah+Riot+Rebellion(sic).
To start with Wiki link on Moplah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moplah_rebellion).

I hope you'll have the integrity to not to rely on Congress-Commie funded NCERT/CBSE text books/contents by likes of Romila Thapar and Ifran Habib.

Or if you are a history buff, please go through the most comprehensive compilation on Indian History (from ancient to modern 11 Volumes. ) by R.C. Mazumdar (rightly called the Pitamah among Indian historians) and Sir Jadunath Sarkar.

PS: R.C. Mazumdar's writing are taken to be authoratative even by Islamic historians in India he quotes directly from first hand sources like Al-Beruni and Ibn Batuta. Impartiality is assured.

sparten
16 May 06,, 15:11
That Gandhi was a deeply flawed individual, there is no doubt.
That he was one of the giants of the twentieth century and beyond; no doubt there either.

All great men are also usually deeply flawed. It what makes them great and also what makes them human.

lemontree
16 May 06,, 15:19
That Gandhi was a deeply flawed individual, there is no doubt.
That he was one of the giants of the twentieth century and beyond; no doubt there either.

All great men are also usually deeply flawed. It what makes them great and also what makes them human.
If Gandhi did'nt have flaws he would have been a God.

What type of political leader would you prefer- one with human flaws or without them:
1. A man who was unfaithful to his wife - but led his nation well in turned the US into a world power. (Roosevelt)
2. A man who woke up late smoke and drank late into the night - yet led his island nation to victory (Churchill)
OR
3. A man who did not womanize, did not smoke and drank an occasional beer - but led the world into darkness of war, carried out genocide against the Jews and caused the destruction and humiliation of his country. (Adolf Hitler).

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 15:23
If Gandhi did'nt have flaws he would have been a God.

What type of political leader would you prefer- one with human flaws or without them:
1. A man who was unfaithful to his wife - but led his nation well in turned the US into a world power. (Roosevelt)
2. A man who woke up late smoke and drank late into the night - yet led his island nation to victory (Churchill)
OR
3. A man who did not womanize, did not smoke and drank an occasional beer - but led the world into darkness of war, carried out genocide against the Jews and caused the destruction and humiliation of his country. (Adolf Hitler).
Nice... I'll use that somewhere.

Gandhi indeed wasn't a bad guy. Thats why I stressed on the fact that there's a difference from calling him a bad guy and from what I'm saying.

TopHatter
16 May 06,, 15:50
Talk about Khalistan wasn't originated by me. TH asked can "somebody" explan Khalistan to him. He also said politely.
He never said it originated with you. He stated that you are - and have been - posting flamebait in the form of politely worded posts and news articles. In other words, this didn't start with my request from yesterday.

For your sake, I hope he is mistaken.

sparten
16 May 06,, 15:55
If Gandhi did'nt have flaws he would have been a God.

What type of political leader would you prefer- one with human flaws or without them:
1. A man who was unfaithful to his wife - but led his nation well in turned the US into a world power. (Roosevelt)
2. A man who woke up late smoke and drank late into the night - yet led his island nation to victory (Churchill)
OR
3. A man who did not womanize, did not smoke and drank an occasional beer - but led the world into darkness of war, carried out genocide against the Jews and caused the destruction and humiliation of his country. (Adolf Hitler).
I know that sir. Just my observation that great men tend to have correspondingly large flaws as well, and our tendancy to diefy them make that difficult to realize.

As for Herr Hitler, lets see he carried out an affair with his niece for starters.....

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 16:03
It's called fishing, TH. You try too hard and you can make a child's nursery rhyme sound dirty.

I have been on this forum for very long, if my opinions keep going against a group of people's then they have every right in saying so and presenting their own. Obviously my opinions are just in larger volume, and yes they've been worded POLITELY as well mannered individuals do.

Politeness is a flawed concept? Gee I was hoping for a medal to ward off this persistent stream of attacks calmly and haven't gone beserk and abused anyone as many have abused me.

One of you should be out there building a case against impoliteness, however.

TopHatter
16 May 06,, 16:13
It's called fishing, TH. You try too hard and you can make a child's nursery rhyme sound dirty.

I have been on this forum for very long, if my opinions keep going against a group of people's then they have every right in saying so and presenting their own. Obviously my opinions are just in larger volume, and yes they've been worded POLITELY as well mannered individuals do.

Politeness is a flawed concept? Gee I was hoping for a medal to ward off this persistent stream of attacks calmly and haven't gone beserk and abused anyone as many have abused me.

One of you should be out there building a case against impoliteness, however.
Politeness? No, that's a strawman.
Either that or you are sincerely missing the point.

This is not about your politeness or lack thereof. It's about you posting flamebait politely cloaked in a news article and then whining about it when people call you on it.

I get more complaints about you than any other member, and I'm not only talking about reports from Indian members either.


Gee I was hoping for a medal to ward off this persistent stream of attacks calmly and haven't gone beserk and abused anyone as many have abused me. We're fresh out of medals for doing what you are supposed to do in the first place. If you have a problem, you report to the moderators.
The only difficulty is what I've already said, people are reporting you.

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 16:26
Politeness? No, that's a strawman.
Either that or you are sincerely missing the point.

This is not about your politeness or lack thereof. It's about you posting flamebait politely cloaked in a news article and then whining about it when people call you on it.

You're commenting on my intentions. Truth is you've asked me to do about 5-6 things against what my natural instincts told me to. I complied as it came out of a moderator of the board. Others have rejected your calls and have maligned you as a co-consiprator in Evil Asim's plans.

IMO, this would put you under a lot of pressure.

Perhaps you'd term that into a straw man's argument, but I just write as I see it. I present to you my side and expect to hear the other guy's side, but in return I just get abused, no POVs!

I did report! But when one's called a BASTARD and with a lot of contempt and still little actions' taken against that, one tends to have diminished hope. In the culture I come from thats a point of no return, you just don't get away with calling me a Bastard, yet given the situation I heeded YOUR call to back off.


I get more complaints about you than any other member, and I'm not only talking about reports from Indian members either.

So what man? We all know how easy it is to launch a report! Thing is, have I actually done anything provably wrong? Its just stuff that you THINK I'm actually implying.


We're fresh out of medals for doing what you are supposed to do in the first place. If you have a problem, you report to the moderators.
The only difficulty is what I've already said, people are reporting you.

I know I've seen old westerns. I know what the lynch is all about. I hope you would know there are sly motives in their reports... I've worked hard for the betterment of this board, I too have expectations from it! God I wish you guys hadn't banned those people just for MY Sanity's sakes. This surround sound attack's very uneasing.

TopHatter
16 May 06,, 16:46
God I wish you guys hadn't banned those people just for MY Sanity's sakes. This surround sound attack's very uneasing.
No, they managed that all on their own.


You'll be getting a PM from me in a few minutes for the rest.

Neo
16 May 06,, 17:15
We're fresh out of medals for doing what you are supposed to do in the first place. If you have a problem, you report to the moderators.
The only difficulty is what I've already said, people are reporting you.
Okay, I have had enough of this already!
Asim is been under attack for a long time, personal insults, calling names, rediculing..we've seen that all.
There are even Indian members using signitures adressed to Asim or using his his quotes. There's one saying 'Asim the Monkey...'!!
I've always believed to fight for a cause, to kill the message not the messenger.

There are people on this borad who'd like to have Asim banned for personal reasons.
Since when is 'personal disliking' a reason to ban a person?
Asim is not a mod, you don't like him add him to your ignore list and he's gone, vanished, verschwunden, disparu!!

The whole issue here is that some people see the banning of a word seen as deragetory by Pakistani as a moral victory for Asim and for the rest of the Pakistanis here on WAB.
Then Srirangan and Gautham got banned, for which Asim is not resposible btw, but people want to revenge them by having Asim banned!

Asim is a moderate and brilliant guy, somewhat contoversial in his ways, but he never gets personal with anyone here nor does he insult people who attack him.

I'd like to ask all members to back off a little, Tops and Confed have already done a lot to improve the SA section and we're already seeing results, so please give them and Asim a break!
Don't like Asim, use the ignore button but stop making plea for his departure!
A lot of other 'respected' names should go before Asim, yeah...no one's perfect including me!

Just my 2 cents.

Tronic
16 May 06,, 17:25
Only too many.

You've got to filter out using your own sense between Indian and sikh sources.

Filter our between Indian and Sikh sources??? the Sikh sources you talk about are terrorist sources, you think all Sikhs want Khalistan... no they don't but i'm sure thats what you wish for...


What I was searching right now to give you was this documentary I saw on Khalistan. Starts from Pak's Independence from the British, how the sikhs were fooled by the Hindu parties that Pakistan's a Muslim land and it would be wise to join with India instead.
Sikhs were not fooled by anybody... the British asked the Sikhs if they wanted another country as a homeland... Sikhs refused practicallly because we saw India as our homeland... and nice video by the way... but majority of the Sikhs are well educated and won't fall for this religious crap as justification for partition...


Then it forwards to Bhindranwale (their militaristic leader) who organized the Khalistan army. Kind of militants if you ask me, India labels them as terrorists.

They are terrorists... they rounded up Hindu's and shot them dead... their goal was a completely Sikh punjab... sick ass bastards... One is labelled a terrorist if one carries out attacks on civillians and has a political agenda... Bhinderewala and his supportes perfectly fit the description of terrorists...



I just gave Sher-e-Punjab's reference for that one claim that they've abandoned the fight for Pakistan's Punjab. Being a Khalistani he can at least give a Khalistani opinion.
a Khalistani... lol... cowards I would say.. these terrorists have all run abraod and they try to ruin our future... ******s... all should be shot...

TopHatter
16 May 06,, 17:38
Filter our between Indian and Sikh sources??? the Sikh sources you talk about are terrorist sources, you think all Sikhs want Khalistan... no they don't but i'm sure thats what you wish for...
Therein lies the rub. How do we know they are terrorist sources? I'm not saying they are or are not. I'm saying most Westerners have no idea one way or the other.


They are terrorists... they rounded up Hindu's and shot them dead... their goal was a completely Sikh punjab... sick ass bastards... One is labelled a terrorist if one carries out attacks on civillians and has a political agenda... Bhinderewala and his supportes perfectly fit the description of terrorists...News articles and stories etc? If they've already been posted here on the WAB, do you have a URL?

Curious, where do you personally live? (generally speaking, not asking for your home address :redface: )

Asim Aquil
16 May 06,, 17:41
Therein lies the rub. How do we know they are terrorist sources? I'm not saying they are or are not. I'm saying most Westerners have no idea one way or the other.

For what it's worth, neither can a civillian Pakistani.

Hence we see the source, see the way its presented, do some googling and form an opinion.

TopHatter
16 May 06,, 17:42
For what it's worth, neither can a civillian Pakistani.

Hence we see the source, see the way its presented, do some googling and form an opinion.
That's great for you. But I'm on the other side of the world and received nothing in the way of education on South Asia growing up.

ASG
16 May 06,, 17:43
There are even Indian members using signitures adressed to Asim or using his his quotes. There's one saying 'Asim the Monkey...'!!


I used that signature.

And if Asim had a problem, he must have said that himself. I think he can speak for himself, can't he?

And what if the person calls himself an Ape and a Clown, do you object to that? Because in that thread Asim rightfully said that he was the monkey. :biggrin:

Moreover there is a general perception here at WAB about his true nature too, and I think you know what I mean. ;)

Nevertheless, I think we can put that behind us now, since I no more have that signature.

Neo
16 May 06,, 17:48
I used that signature.

And if Asim had a problem, he must have said that himself. I think he can speak for himself, can't he?

And what if the person calls himself an Ape and a Clown, do you object to that? Because in that thread Asim rightfully said that he was the monkey. :biggrin:

Moreover there is a general perception here at WAB about his true nature too, and I think you know what I mean. ;)

Nevertheless, I think we can put that behind us now, since I no more have that signature.



Max,

I have no issues with you, I only referred to your signature to make a point that people are getting personal with Asim. Asim didnot ask me to advocate his matter, not does he require any help, he's strong and can stand on his own you'll agree.

But I agree, lets put it all behind us and move on.
Won't you agree that SA section is getting better and better now?

Tronic
16 May 06,, 17:52
hey TH... here's your proof they're terrorists...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAvLx2KiwhU&search=Sikh

and please don't think of the Khandha in the wrong way... it's our religious symbol which has been mis-used by these terrorists...

ASG
16 May 06,, 17:55
I only referred to your signature to make a point that people are getting personal with Asim.

If Asim thinks that is a problem then, as the Mods say, report the post. Simple.



But I agree, lets put it all behind us and move on.

Sure. Our nations might be enemies but flame wars on forums won't serve any purpose.


Won't you agree that SA section is getting better and better now?

Agreed, except for a couple of trollers who still seem to test my patience here and there.

Tronic
16 May 06,, 17:56
you see, their ideology is to make a Sikh nation where they can FORCE the people to follow what is written in the Granth Sahib(Sikh holy book) something similar to what a lot of Islamic countries have...

Tronic
16 May 06,, 18:00
and here's another one TH... a news reel from CNN...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTKA2UPpVLo&search=Sikh

Neo
16 May 06,, 18:03
If Asim thinks that is a problem then, as the Mods say, report the post. Simple.
Point taken...but please try to see my remarks in the true context and you'll understand why I said that.


Sure. Our nations might be enemies but flame wars on forums won't serve any purpose.
Thats what I've been trying to tell all Indian and Pak members here since I joind WAB a year ago...


Agreed, except for a couple of trollers who still seem to test my patience here and there.
There will always be trolls from both sides! Sometimes its even funny to have them, like alok 2020, he gave us enough to laugh making a joke out of himself.. :redface:

ASG
16 May 06,, 18:03
and here's another one TH... a news reel from CNN...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTKA2UPpVLo&search=Sikh

Chill out, dude. Khalistan supporters are all brainwashed people. No good loosing your time & effort while trying to show them the truth.

My suggestion to you is to have a Patiala peg with a butter chicken and chill out! :biggrin:

TopHatter
16 May 06,, 18:06
My suggestion to you is to have a Patiala peg with a butter chicken and chill out! :biggrin:
Just saw that on Tronic's profile....I thought he lived in Canada for some reason? :confused:

ASG
16 May 06,, 18:10
Just saw that on Tronic's profile....I thought he lived in Canada for some reason? :confused:

Well! And I always get the feeling that you are an Australian. :tongue: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Neo
16 May 06,, 18:12
Well! And I always get the feeling that you are an Australian. :tongue: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Funny you say that, I used to believe that too till I check his profile to send a pm.. :redface:

TopHatter
16 May 06,, 18:14
Well! And I always get the feeling that you are an Australian. :tongue: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Why? Have I said anything about slipping a few prawns on the barbie for ya mate? :biggrin:

ASG
16 May 06,, 18:15
Why? Have I said anything about slipping a few prawns on the barbie for ya mate? :biggrin:

Naw!

Your hat makes you look like the wizard of Oz! :biggrin:

Neo
16 May 06,, 18:17
Why? Have I said anything about slipping a few prawns on the barbie for ya mate? :biggrin:
Now you sound like one to! :eek:

Tronic
16 May 06,, 18:58
Just saw that on Tronic's profile....I thought he lived in Canada for some reason? :confused:
oh, lol TH... yea I might have lived in Canada like 3 years ago... lol. Actually this is my cousins account who was in Canada for his MBA... He stopped using it so I figured I would just carry on with his account without having to bother making a new one... have had this account 5-6 months now...

TopHatter
16 May 06,, 19:18
oh, lol TH... yea I might have lived in Canada like 3 years ago... lol. Didn't like the beer? :biggrin:

brak
16 May 06,, 19:20
Didn't like the beer? :biggrin:

or the canucks? :biggrin:

Tronic
16 May 06,, 19:39
Didn't like the beer? :biggrin:
no my cousin finished his MBA so he's back, and well I have yet to finish grade 12... so lets see where I end up after that, lol...

Jay
16 May 06,, 19:43
Asim,
Can you reply for Post # 57 and #60?

Gabru47
17 May 06,, 00:13
It seems like I'm always late but never missed. I'll leave the rest of the thread alone but I have to respond to this.


Mr. Gandhi is an extraordinary man who believes in his own mission. But the clothes
:biggrin: How is this in any way a justification for partition?


, this imitation of the hindu peasants,
One has to admit that gandhi wasn't an asian gentlemen like jinnah, nor did he circle with civilized folks like the muslim ashraf or the aristocratic british, but had a grassroots following. One is pressed to understand how gandhis resemblance to "peasants" is a sound justification for partition.


the spinning wheels,
Gandhi promoted buying cloth from indian industries, which were largely based around the spinning wheel, instead of buying british manufactured goods that were created from raw materials originally sourced from india. Unless there is something more dastardly behind the aforementioned spinning wheels, I fail to see how this is a reason for partition.


the bits and pieces of sanskrit philosophy, Ahimsa, Sachagrah, he is calling forth a flood
Ahimsa means non-violence or non-injury.
I have no idea what sacagrah is; maybe he is referring to satyagraha, if this quote is attributed to jinnah ofcourse, which I can't possibly understand how anyone could feel threatened by it.
Swaraj, another odious "sanskrit philosophy" that gandhi espoused, means self-rule.

I fail to see how any of these "sanskrit philosophies" can only appeal to followers of hinduism, or by gandhis mentioning of these be seen as a threat to the followers of arabic philosophy. If this is taken as a threat by muslims, the followers of the arabic philosophy, then they would have be the most loathsome, backwards, reactionary, bigoted group thinkers in existence. If being the keyword in my last sentence. :biggrin:


"Would it stop there? What else would they demand... If they succeed in kicking out the British if they've usurped power in India, would then their attention turn to the Muslims?"

"We're not outsiders... We have no England to go back to"
Pure conjecture. This is no fault of gandhis.

In this thread some pakistani posters have tried to give the image that gandhis introduction of "sanskrit philosopy" into politics forced jinnahs hand into creating pakistan and might be suggesting that jinna be absolved of any responsobilites of partition. I ask pakistanis to please list the demands that jinnah made to avoid partition. I ask because I'm not too erudite on this topic, although I do remember reading about jinnah demanding that only the muslim league, his political party, be allowed to have muslim politicans and that muslims should be given 30% guaranteed representation in any government. I'm probably wrong though as I read this along time ago and couldn't differentiate between biased nationalistic articles trying to distort historical facts.

Also I would like to know why jinnah promoted the direct action day riots which lead to muslims slaughtering non-muslim men and keeping the women as londis(this isn't french, google londi+islam to find out what they are).

Ray
17 May 06,, 00:21
Lahore Resolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Minar-e-Pakistan, where Pakistan Resolution was passed
Enlarge
Minar-e-Pakistan, where Pakistan Resolution was passed

The Lahore Resolution, later called Pakistan Resolution, is a political statement adopted by the All India Muslim League on 23 March 1940.

Although the idea of founding the state Pakistan had been introduced as early as 1930, very few had responded to it. However, the volatile political climate and hostilities between the Hindus and Muslims in British India gave the idea stronger backing. The division of India into two separate sovereign states is sometimes referred as Two Nation Theory.

In 1939, the Viceroy Lord Linlithgow declared India's entrance into World War II without consulting provincial governments. In protest, the Indian National Congress asked all of its elected representatives to resign from the government. In 1940, Mohammad Ali Jinnah called a general session of the All India Muslim League in Lahore to discuss the situation. The meeting was also aimed at analyzing the reasons that led to the defeat of the Muslim League in the Indian general election of 1937 in the Muslim majority provinces. Jinnah, in his speech, criticised the Congress and the nationalist Muslims, and espoused the Two-Nation Theory and the reasons for the demand for separate Muslim homelands. Sikandar Hayat Khan, the Chief Minister of the Punjab, drafted the original Lahore Resolution, which was placed before the Subject Committee of the All India Muslim League for discussion and amendments. The resolution, radically amended by the subject committee, was moved in the general session by Shere-Bangla A.K. Fazlul Huq, the Chief Minister of Bengal, on 23 March and was supported by Choudhury Khaliquzzaman and other Muslim leaders.

The resolution declared:

"No constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the Muslims unless geographical contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign. That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in the units and in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights of the minorities, with their consultation. Arrangements thus should be made for the security of Muslims where they were in a minority".

The above indicates that Jinnah moved the Two Nation Theory where he wanted a Moslem homeland and thus partition of India.

From the Lahore Resolution (which is history) it is evident that Jinnah used religon for his political agenda.

Gandhi was against Partition and the fact that nationalist moslems including Khan Addul Gaffar Khan the Pashtun leader, also known as the Frontier Gandhi, was with Gandhi and the Congress is a clear indication that Gandhi was no racist,apart from the fact that Gandhi mingled with the lowest of the lowest class/ caste without inhibition.

Therefore, the title of the thread is misleading. I would like to believe that there was no malafide and instead born out of crass ignorance of history!

Tronic
17 May 06,, 00:27
[QUOTE]
:biggrin: How is this in any way a justification for partition?
it wasn't Gandhi who came up with the 2 nation theory but Jinnah...



One has to admit that gandhi wasn't an asian gentlemen like jinnah, nor did he circle with civilized folks like the muslim ashraf or the aristocratic british, but had a grassroots following. One is pressed to understand how gandhis resemblance to "peasants" is a sound justification for partition.
Mahatma Gandhi turned from this...
http://www.madurai.com/mahga1.jpg

to this...
http://zagrebsummit.yoga-in-daily-life.hr/images/Gandhi3.jpg

his lifestyle change was his greatest sacrifice for the freedom of India, he believed that only if he changed his lifestyle could he get the other Indians to follow him to boycott British goods...


Gandhi promoted buying cloth from indian industries, which were largely based around the spinning wheel, instead of buying british manufactured goods that were created from raw materials originally sourced from india. Unless there is something more dastardly behind the aforementioned spinning wheels, I fail to see how this is a reason for partition.
Yes, he wanted all products to be Indian and to boycott all British goods so as to not give the British a large consumer market...

TopHatter
17 May 06,, 01:55
Yes, he wanted...to boycott all British goods so as to not give the British a large consumer market...
I thought that was the whole point of colonialism... :confused:

;)

Tronic
17 May 06,, 03:54
I thought that was the whole point of colonialism... :confused:

;)
and he was fighting against colonialism...

TopHatter
17 May 06,, 04:06
and he was fighting against colonialism...
I know, I was being facetious ;)

Tronic
17 May 06,, 04:08
I know, I was being facetious ;)
:biggrin:

OrdinaryGuy
17 May 06,, 07:09
Pakistanis draw the entire ideology of Pakistan from trying to defame Mahatma Gandhi and calling him a player of religious politics. I don't blame them because their school text books are riddled with such obscure facts.

Gandhi always believed in the unity of Hindus and Muslims. And History recognises Gandhi for the same.

If Gandhi was flawed in anyway, I believe his flaw was that he strong supported Nehru to become India's first Prime Minister. As we all know, Nehru was India's most incapable Prime Minister. If we had Sardar Patel as our first PM.. the kashmir issue wouldn't have existed or at least the entire state of J&K would be a part of India

sparten
17 May 06,, 09:49
You have ever read any of our school text books, kiddo?
As for "Gandhi was a racist" its not Pakistani based story, its from the US Congressional Record.

Samudra
17 May 06,, 10:12
Lol!


Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and other minorities.

I can find around two dozen ethinicites here in India and if taken individually they're all "minorities"....:biggrin:

Sure, tamils are getting killed...perhaps that is the reason why Tamil Nadu - the state with a Tamil Majority population ranks third when it comes to development.

THAT piece of Congressional Record is worthy to be used as a toilet paper - if you're not a worshipper of White skin!

Vaman
17 May 06,, 11:48
What I wonder is how such "pile of poo" (as someone described it) gets into congressional records?
From my POV all it does is give some amount of credibility to these human rights advocates.

BTW, the person you wanna get in touch would be :
http://www.house.gov/towns/bio.shtm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=edolphus+towns+khalistan&btnG=Search

Gabru47
18 May 06,, 00:52
Does anyone here actually know what the muslim leagues' demands were before they called for 'direct action' on the non-muslims and urged their constituency to become ghazis and keep non-muslim women as mal-e-ghanimat?

OrdinaryGuy
18 May 06,, 04:44
Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela... two famous Black leaders referred to Gandhi in their speeches...

But yea.. the Pakistanis think he is racist...

OrdinaryGuy
18 May 06,, 04:50
Remember, when someone says Mahatma Gandhi, 90% of the literate world recognises that name.
I doubt even 1% know who Jinnah is.. and those that do.. outside Pakistan... recognise him as a player of religious politics rather than Gandhi..

Gandhi was a grass-roots leader that lead many non-resistance movements against the british, not only in India but also in South Africa.. What did Jinnah do? He used to preach wearing a suit and a tie and talked about an Islamic Republic of Pakistan..

The only reason I can see Pakistanis for attacking Gandhi is for cementing their own ideology of Pakistan and trying to bridge the huge gap between Gandhi and Jinnah as independence leaders

Confed999
18 May 06,, 06:10
The way I see it, you either believe in the person or the legend. When one believes in the legend what they see is larger than life. When one believes in the person there will always be room to find fault, real or not, matters or not.

If you believe in the legend of the Lone Ranger you see a force for justice, for freedom, for equality, and for life. If you believe the Lone Ranger to be a man, then he was just another vigilante with a Native American slave...

Ray
18 May 06,, 06:23
Does anyone here actually know what the muslim leagues' demands were before they called for 'direct action' on the non-muslims and urged their constituency to become ghazis and keep non-muslim women as mal-e-ghanimat?

The Muslim League's Working Committee called upon the Moslems to launch direct action in mid-August 1946.