Did Nehru get Gandhi killed?

[pothead]

He is quick to give a negative rating to any post which is opposed to his even if it is not abusive. What a negative rating does is that it suppreses the freedom of expression of the poster because his post is now not visible to anyone on the forum. Also if you get too many negatives you can get banned which is again suppressing the FoE of a person. It is one thing to give a negative rating if the post is abusive but to give a negative rating just because the post opposes your view point is nothing but misuse of power

You are describing all the liberals of this world buddy.

 

[pothead]

A very interesting article in the context of this thread.

https://www.pgurus.com/gandhis-arti...re-he-said-that-congress-should-be-dissolved/

On January 27th, 1948, 3 days before his assassination, Mahatma Gandhi had written an article, suggesting that the Congress party be dissolved and all its members should become volunteers of an organization he called the Lok Sevak Sangh.

A copy of this article is reproduced at the end of this post. In an earlier post, we had mentioned this fact. In that we had quoted Kalyanam, the last Personal Secretary of the Mahatma:

The last paragraph in the article bears mention. It is almost as if Gandhiji is prescient:
I have only opened to view the distant scene. If I have the time and health, I hope to discuss in these columns what the Servants of the Nation can do to raise themselves in the estimation of their masters, the whole of the adult population, male and female.

It remains a mystery to this day as to why Congress did not heed this last wish of the Mahatma. Did the party, drunk on power, wanted to continue to enjoy the good life? In a scenario in which there was no Congress as a political party, Gandhi envisions a group of city dwellers who would step in to provide the political leadership required to steer the country.

Below is a copy of the article that appeared on the February 1st, 1948 issue of The Harijan:

Fig 1. Gandhi’s article in the Feb 1st, 1948 issue of The Harijan

Another mention of the same article has also appeared in National Standard on February 9, 1948:

Fig 1. National Standard issue, Feb 9th, 1948 issue

 

[Soumitra]

You are describing all the liberals of this world buddy.

OPINIONS
Three traits of an Indian pseudo liberal – an easy guide to identify them

BySrivy Anand

Indian liberals have been actively at play in the mainstreams of politics, media and art for decades since independence. Their character, shaped by the aristocratic foothold they enjoyed over the years, has changed considerably and thus the meaning of “liberalism” in India is no longer what a textbook might tell you.

With the rise of the social media, they faced some resistance, but they soon discovered how to “game” this platform as well. From selective “blue ticks” (in the beginning on Twitter) to using their foothold in mainstream media to promote “favourable” social media handles, such as selected stand-up comedians, they know the art of keeping hold on narrative and perception.

This unchallenged power has given rise to an army of the pseudo-liberal talking heads and their cheerleaders. It is not easy to speak against them, but it is easy to identify them.

Let us see how you can recognize them in the crowd with some special characteristics they possess.

Note: If you are reading this and have ever been name-called as an anti-national/sickular or even an Aaptard, please oblige this piece of work with patience and perspective.

Common symptoms of an Indian pseudo-liberal:

DISGUISE
The Indian liberal masquerades under the hood of being “neutral”. Well, in a country whose major political opposition figures are reduced to theatrical caricatures like Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal, what else can one afford to do?

Secondly, it is easy appear neutral if you love Red colour and all the choices you have are shades of Red.

But this neutrality is a mask. More often than not, the receivers of their outrage are extremist elements of only one religious ideology. And more often than not, the receivers of their outrage or contempt are gaffes of only one political party.

When pointed out this lack of neutrality, they usually dismiss your critics as “whataboutery”, but when suffering from rare pangs of honesty, they may justify their bias by saying that the incumbent government deserves more outrage because they are in power.

But somehow this theory fails to see that Trinamool Congress (TMC) is in power in West Bengal, Left Democratic Front (LDF) is in power in Kerala, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is in power in Delhi, and so on and so forth. There have been communal riots in TMC’s West Bengal, ideologically motivated daylight murders in LDF’s Kerala and an agriculture crisis in AIADMK’s Tamil Nadu in the recent past.

Try to recollect the outrage, contempt, or activism you saw from the so-called Indian liberals over such issues and against the people in power. You get the disguise?

DISENCHANTMENT
They’re not happy.

Yes exactly. They are never happy.

They will share/rant endlessly about the issues with the current state of affairs, the ones which have been long withstanding, the ones which can’t be solved overnight, but somehow they know that there is only one reason why these problems exist – presence of people who are not like them.

Mind you that they won’t provide a practical alternate solution to the issue at hand. The only solution they have is to protest against and demonize “the other” – the not so enlightened who are not like them.

For example, if you spot a social media post offering practical alternatives without hyper ventilating, you can safely assume that the person is not your typical “liberal”. It’ll be a rarity to spot even a few approving articles or social media posts with constructive argument/opinion directed towards the policies or problems.

They’re just here to outrage. Just outrage, call names and have a hearty laugh (while being deeply distressed about problems).

After all, who wants to get into “serious” stuff after you spot a nice rib-tickling troll on cow vigilantism and rising “Hindu terror”?

DENIAL
Many of such liberals had threatened to leave India if Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister. They did not want to live in a “Hindu India”. And they are not living in one, they are living in denial.

They deny that people like Narendra Modi or Yogi Adityanath can represent the people of India, despite winning huge mandates.

They deny that there is extremism among Muslims in India, or that Kashmir issue is about Islamic extremism.

They deny that they themselves are intolerant bunch who are not open to dissenting views, and who would trample of the freedom of expression of dissenters on the first possible opportunity. Labeling someone “troll” and “bigot” to silence them is just one of the tools they employ. They have tried to take away jobs of those who disagree, and they give intellectual cover to those who kill in Kannur and Dantewada.

They deny that they can ever be wrong.

CONCLUSION
We, as a country of more than five thousand years of culture of assimilation and mutual respect, are strong enough to tolerate the conveniently twisted pseudo-liberal views, which doesn’t allow assimilation or respect for the tradition.

However, this tolerance will be ill conceived if the “liberals” go on an unjustified tirade with a vile agenda, similar to the one which broke our country into pieces several decades ago.

cTherefore we must identify the pseudo-liberals and keep an eye on their agenda, with a hope that the real liberals take control and save “liberalism” from becoming a bad word for good.

 

[pothead]

https://twitter.com/x/status/921360012869382146

FYI, Savarkar was one of the real patriots of Indian freedom movement, not like Gandhi & Nehru, who were in cahoots with British getting preferential 5 star treatment to fool Indian masses.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thanks for a detailed reply.

If one was to draw parallels of religious extremism and intolerance between Pakistan and India, Pakistan experienced armed uprising by small groups whereas the majority of the population remained opposed to such groups. We have also had massive growths in cities due to migration from villages but not seen similar outcome as you've described above in Indian cities.

I will not challenge your conclusions about Pakistani society, and respect what you have written, but beg leave to point out that this is diametrically not the impression that we get from outside. We see a fanatic and thoroughly religiously oriented population, in which even the educated segments, some of which we encounter in PDF, has a totally closed mind on religion - their religion - and its interpretation. You would not get such a hostile reception as two recent posts got, if this had been an Indian forum of the same level of intellectual capability.This rather mars the picture that has been drawn for us to consider.

The point is, this change in India is at grassroot levels and part of the culture of the majority rural population that is demanding a majoritarian rule. It took us a decade to fight the menace with a majority population opposing it, how will India fight it when the majority approves of it!? Chances of success are much higher in India and the region has to brace for that.

Your population also emphatically demands majoritarian rule, in fact, the total exclusion and disenfranchisement of minorities from certain administrative and elective positions. The active persecution of the minorities is in decline, but it is not this that is remarkable. It is the sectarian conflict, between different sets of Muslims, and those who claim to be devotees of Islam but who are disowned by the majority, and it is this which is what you have depicted as '...to fight the menace with a majority population opposing it...'

The majority approves of Hindu-front actions, it does not (yet) approve of persecution of Muslims, Christians or Sikhs.

The situation is bad but not irretrievable; the popular, majority view is bad but not irredeemable.

Love for guns doesn't translate in to love for violence. Saying that, when you are the ruling elite you don't need guns as the army has plenty.

The Army plays a wholly different role in Indian society and in Pakistani society. Equating their roles is an egregious mistake.

RSS has managed to secure the rule, whereas despite weapons being readily available in Pakistan a religious extremist party has not done so.

Not permanently, but through a democratic election. Their sustained success is still to be seen.

One can only hope for a reversal in India but chances are slim. The narrative is aggressive and the counter narrative is mute. Public at large is lapping up the majoritarian pitch.

Hardly mute. People are getting killed for opposing these developments. The public at large wants development, not majoritarian rule; the ruling party/coalition has been careful to base all its administrative actions on promoting development. That liberals and moderates are on the back foot is not sought to be denied; that they have been defeated and eliminated is a premature belief.