What's new

Gandhi On Jews And Hitler

hyderabd was always india.. all borders within india and 80% hindu population. no way pak could have touched it LOL

As was Bangladesh(then east Pakistan) in terms of borders. Borders didn't have the same meaning then that they do now. Kashmir had a Muslim majority, Pakistan & India were jousting for position then. No one yet knew how it would all turn out.
 
.
Meanwhile, the Sardar had sent a back channel offer to Pakistan to swap Hyderabad for Kashmir. Sardar Shaukat Hayat Khan, a Pakistani politician who carried the message, later recorded that rulers in Karachi told him not to worry about the “rocks that would come to Pakistan anyhow”

The horses that led Operation Polo - Indian Express

There is no doubt that Hyderabad was a more pressing problem in Patel's eyes, and justifiably so. But the fact remains that without Patel there would have been no Kashmir. Nehru's hemming and hawing would have won the day.
 
.
As was Bangladesh(then east Pakistan) in terms of borders. Borders didn't have the same meaning then that they do now. Kashmir had a Muslim majority, Pakistan & India were jousting for position then. No one yet knew how it would all turn out.

BD was part of British india, so they partitioned it on their choice. but hyd and kashmir were not.
In kashmir the ruler acceded to india , in Hyderabad there was no border with Pak
 
.
There is no doubt that Hyderabad was a more pressing problem in Patel's eyes, and justifiably so. But the fact remains that without Patel there would have been no Kashmir. Nehru's hemming and hawing would have won the day.

Does not matter, Nehru did what was necessary in the end. Best to remember that all leaders have multiple facets to the, portraying a cartoonish image does not do justice, not to Gandhi, not to Nehru & not to Patel. just answering a question about Nehru & Kashmir. As shown earlier Patel was less attached to it & his conversations with Nehru were that of a Home Minister in charge of any such operation.
 
.
Does not matter, Nehru did what was necessary in the end.

It was Patel who gave the orders to Maneckshaw, in front of Nehru. Nehru was trying to resist but was forced to acquiesce in the end.

But Nehru did eventually succeed in sabotaging the Indian case by prematurely agreeing to a ceasefire and going to the UN.
 
.
It was Patel who gave the orders to Maneckshaw, in front of Nehru. Nehru was trying to resist but was forced to acquiesce in the end.

But Nehru did eventually succeed in sabotaging the Indian case by prematurely agreeing to a ceasefire and going to the UN.
Good one this patel man and now this modi man. pak must learn to respect signed documents like the one signed by Maharaja hari Singh.
 
.
It was Patel who gave the orders to Maneckshaw, in front of Nehru. Nehru was trying to resist but was forced to acquiesce in the end.

But Nehru did eventually succeed in sabotaging the Indian case by prematurely agreeing to a ceasefire and going to the UN.

Patel could only give orders on behalf of Nehru, Nehru had to acquiesce in any decision.

As far as your second point of Nehru sabotaging is concerned, it's odd that you give Patel all credit for ordering the military action but none for stopping it. So, who was in charge then? Your argument is also simplistic & does both Nehru & patel injustice because according to this Patel fails in his duties when he orders something but then is unable to finish his job. There were number of reasons for the ceasefire & not just one man's decision.
 
.
It is because of Gandhi's support to the corrupt Nehru that so many Indians are starving, malnourished, and living in slums.

O Man please don’t put Mr Nehru in the cotegory of Mr Gandhi. Mr Nehru was one of the patriots like you people on this forum, who want to support India but won’t like to lose even a single dollar from your pocket :no:. Mr Gandhi was a lawyer by profession, also served as a journalist in South Africa, had travelled the whole world but he didn’t run after money. He had adopted Khadi cloths/ boycott of British goods as it were destroying the Indian economy. While Mr Nehru was regarded as a rich man, who also used to follow Mr Gandhi to the extent, until it may not effect luxury of his usual life, similar to you people living in US/ West.
below is the government website of India:-
Gandhi, after returning to India inspired people to boycott British goods and refuse earthy possessions. This movement was known as Swaraj and was economically significant because Indian home industries were virtually destructed by British industrialists. He advocated renewal of native Indian industries and began to use a spinning wheel as a token of return to simple village life.

mohandas karamchand gandhi

Mr Gandhi used to sit in the 3rd class of trains to keep himself among the common Indian people while Mr Nehru used to sit in first class compartment in those same trains. It was the time when he compromised to come from 1st to 2nd class and it was much appreciated by other freedom fighters that Mr Nehru had then come closer to the level/ moral of Mr Gandhi. Don’t you people know about private life of Mr Nehru? He was one among the patriots like you people who try defend India on different forums, while being in a western country, but at the same time have good fun in US in parallel also. it was argued that, as he made that attempt as below on a woman of British royal family so it was disclosed otherwise he always used have good fun in London in his time :pop:

Edwina Mountbatten

It was rumoured during Mountbatten's viceroyalty, and remains widely believed, that his wife had an affair with Jawaharlal Nehru, who became India's first prime minister during their stay in India, and that the pair may have resumed that connection on Nehru's subsequent visits to England.

Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
. .
Gandhiji wasn't a saint or a man who could do no wrong. He himself admitted to his past mistakes .

His life was a open book to read. He wrote a biography so that people can have a copy of it.
Most controversial stuff known of his life are the ones he had brought forth to light.


PS: Palistanis find it hard to appreciate gandhi ,as much as they can't do it Sachin Tendulkar .The reason is simple they are Hindus.
 
.
Goes to show he wan't Mahatma at all

Sir, it was estimated that on average British started hanging 100s of freedom fighters every day. Mass killing of freedom fighters were being always reported. Jaliawalla Bagh was just an example when they scored over 1500+ in that park of Jaliawala, to give a message to common Indian public; otherwise they were habituated to keep killing 50-60 somewhere every day. then how was it wrong to get any type of help, even from Hitler, against British rule if it could stop all these genocide and help India get independence? How would it affect the health of Jews if India could get freedom by help of Hitler? Anyhow Hitler was doing what he wanted to but any type of help from the ruler who was against Britain, could be much helpful to stop all that in India :tup:

Mr Gandhi even supported Britain also during WW2 as he had seen that the people of Indian army working for Britain were getting all for their families, were happy to fight for Britain in return of what they could get for their families and for themselves also, so Mr Gandhi preferred not to stop those who were happy to work for Britain and were getting whatever they wanted in life. It also gave a ‘political ground’ to Mr Gandhi for asking for freedom of India while in support of British rule. Doesn’t India has Gorakhas of Nepal who are among the top two bravest battalions in Indian army? :agree:

Mr Gandhi and his men did use to understand that Indian skills were being used in British industries in early 1900s which then helped the British companies destroy the Indian market but he was helpless if a skilled man wants to work for a British company and get good benefit from Britain out of it, regardless what happens to India, the country. India was among the top two industrialized countries till 18th century along with China, but there were certain reasons why India came on the bottom at the time of freedom in 1947. But if India and Pakistan have made over 350mil and 34mil middle class each till now, similar to total population of these two countries at the time of freedom in 1947, so we would thank to those who helped India get independence. If we might have British rule right now also, then first all the rich industrialists and top class professionals might have been shifted to Britain for better benefits there, and at the same time British might be keep killing all those in India who could resist those efforts. While at the same time Britain might have made an Indian army to fight for themselves also, by giving full support to their families and to their ‘personal’ good/ benefits :meeting:

whatever ever happened, happened due to certain reasons. Mr Gandhi won't say any good for a man like Hitler if there are no reasons behind it :disagree:. to stop mass killing in India, getting help from one more mass killer was helplessness of both Mr Gandhi and Netaji S.C.Bose :hitwall:. for your information, generations of those who went with S.C.Bose got the best jobs and other benefits in independent India since 1947. we know a family whose grand mother visited with Netaji S.C.Bose for freedom efforts and this man got a high ranked job in Indian government due to what his 'grand mother' did for India, with a land to make house also :pop:

images


Netaji%2BSubash%2BSandhra%2BBose%2Bwith%2BMahatma%2BGandhi%2B-%2B1938.jpg
 
.
I see Gandhi as misguided (though partly sincere) and sometimes willfully blind. Nehru, on the other hand was an outright scoundrel.

close to another side of truth. being from a wealthy family with little fun on side also, cant mean Mr Nehru was a corrupt man :disagree:. He was one of the true patriot of India who tried for whatever the best he could do for India. Sitting in 3rd class had just one meaning to win faith of common public, to have big numbers in mass protests against British Raj, which was being already done by Mr Gandhi. Mr Nehru was one of the most honest Indian Prime Minister, India ever had. His contribution to India, the nation, can’t be limited to what he did on side which was very personal to his life. He will always be remembered for his efforts to take india high on internation platform, to help India get independence. he was also the one who was founder of NAM (Non Aligned Movement) :tup:

61444820-leaders-the.jpg


(Leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement: (L to R) PM Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Pres. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Pres. Gamal Abdel Nasser of United Arab Rep., Pres. Sukarno of Indonesia, & Pres. Tito of Yugoslavia.)

India
 
.
Neither Gandhi nor Jinnah nor Nehru should be regarded as infallible. They had their faults and made their mistakes.

Jinnah's mistakes weren't of this nature - criminal, racial or bigoted. Don't compare these men with Jinnah.
 
.
Again I would request mods, like in the Maulana Azad thread y'day not to allow abusive words for our leaders. Not that it matters if a half witted pakistani joker calls a person of Gandhi's stature ''devil's son'' or anything, but we don't want to go down that road for your heroes in response, right?
 
.
Jinnah's mistakes weren't of this nature - criminal, racial or bigoted. Don't compare these men with Jinnah.

and my 'very personal' opinion, that is, Just have a look on the level of wealth India lost due to partition. West Pakistan was full of resources, wealthy lands like Punjab/ Sindh they got, but due to conflicts with a 6 times bigger country India, it couldn’t get enough progress. Even till 1992, Pakistan’s per capita income on PPP was well above to that of China and India but again, a bigger conflicts started since 1989 in Kashmir, along with heavy expanse on border for putting the same number of troops as 10 times bigger economy India, enough Pakistan lost. Loss of India due to conflicts with Pakistan is also considerable, not just in terms of heavy money wasted in wars, also in 18 years old conflict in Kashmir in between 1989 to 2007, but also they lost a land to China in 1962 which might not happen if the whole Indian sub-continent could remain united :hitwall:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/gdp-per-capita-ppp

Just to tell to the young PDF members, Karachi was rated with South Korea till 60s and if the India could remain united, the whole nation might be very very powerful with much higher per capita income than what they have right now. Just have a look on SU, its per capita income on PPP till 1990 was around two times to Poland, two times to Mexico, 12 times to China, and just 30% less than Britain in 1990 on PPP, while being a ‘single soviet union’. SU was a super power and India could also be the same like SU if it could remain united, and the blames go to those who couldn’t stop this type of partition, either of SU or of India :pop:

Russia GDP per capita PPP
 
.
Back
Top Bottom