Manohar Parrikar was given tour of Japanese helicopter carrier ” Izumo”

[Pulsar]

This is how the "father of the nation" dressed in public,

If you don't like it, feel free to kill yourself.

But Parrikar isn't the father of the nation!

 

[Archie]

Japan should also bid in the LHD/LPD Tender

It would be great to have a 3rd strike group comprising IZUMO class LHD, 2 SORYU Class SSKs and complemented by Bangalore class Destroyers and P17A Frigates

 

[uparyupari]

But Parrikar isn't the father of the nation!

No, he is a son of the nation, who's father was Gandhi.

 

[DeathInvader]

Gandhi was never the official representative of India ?

When was the last time you read History ? What did you think he was doing at the Round Table Conference in London ?

He was very much the Representative of India and he met the King of England in that dress.

Now provide a link that shows the "dress code for Parliament". I am waiting for that.

From now on Trouser, shirt and floater is part of the attire for a minister visiting a foreign country. Get it ? And you know why ? because the Defence Minister just decided that. See how that works ?

Oh lord. Now i regret replying to you. Seriously how do you even clear your history exam. and 350+ post in 9 days? Wow, you are a troll since your inception here. Now go bug someone else, spare me.

 

[uparyupari]

Oh lord. Now i regret replying to you. Seriously how do you even clear your history exam. and 350+ post in 9 days? Wow, you are a troll since your inception here. Now go bug someone else, spare me.

So anyone who proves you wrong is a Troll ?

If you are wrong, have the grace to admit you were wrong. It is quiet shameless to cover up your idiocy by calling names and trolling.

Here, let me help you.

Round Table Conferences (India) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mahatma Gandhi met the King of England in those cloths and when the Media asked if he felt cold in the Buckingham Palace, he replied, "No, his Majesty had enough cloths on for both of us".

Now that is a statement you might want to understand better.

 

[ayesha.a]

So anyone who proves you wrong is a Troll ?

If you are wrong, have the grace to admit you were wrong. It is quiet shameless to cover up your idiocy by calling names and trolling.

Here, let me help you.

Round Table Conferences (India) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mahatma Gandhi met the King of England in those cloths and when the Media asked if he felt cold in the Buckingham Palace, he replied, "No, his Majesty had enough cloths on for both of us".

Now that is a statement you might want to understand better.

You might want to read your own link. Gandhi was the representative of the Indian national congress, not of India:

Congress Representation — The Gandhi-Irwin Pact opened the way for Congress participation in this conference. Mahatma Gandhi was invited from India and attended as the sole official Congress representative accompanied by Sarojini Naidu and also Madan Mohan Malaviya, Ghanshyam Das Birla, Muhammad Iqbal, Sir Mirza Ismail (Diwan of Mysore), S.K. Dutta and Sir Syed Ali Imam. Gandhi claimed that the Congress alone represented political India; that the Untouchables were Hindus and should not be treated as a “minority”; and that there should be no separate electorates or special safeguards for Muslims or other minorities. These claims were rejected by the other Indian participants. According to this pact, Gandhi was asked to call off the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) and if he did so the prisoners of the British government would be freed excepting the criminal prisoners, i.e. those who had killed British officials. He returned to India, disappointed with the results and empty-handed.

(I don't have any opinion WRT to dress codes - he could be naked for all I care. But let's not mythify historical personages.)

 

[uparyupari]

You might want to read your own link. Gandhi was the representative of the Indian national congress, not of India:

Indian national congress was the representative of India and Gandhi represented INC.

Unless you mean the British were the actual representatives of India


BTW, for those who are obsessed about Parrikar's dress, here is something to wonder about,

the Washington Post article (December 1931 issue) titled: Pope and Mahatma Fail in Audience...this one basically says that the meeting between the Pope and Gandhi that was scheduled was apparently cancelled because of Gandhi's insistence on wearing his native garb, the shawl and loincloth. The Vatican publicly declared that the reason for the cancellation was other pressing engagements already made, but the Post insists that it learned it was because of his garb. The Vatican supposedly felt "too uncomfortable" suggesting he change, and didn't consider it appropriate he wear such garb to meet the Pope.

(I don't have any opinion WRT to dress codes - he could be naked for all I care. But let's not mythify historical personages.)

LOL what myths ?

Gandhi was INVITED by the British as the only credible leader with a mass base, and he met the KING and QEEN of Englad in his Capacity as the Greatest Indian leader.

GANDHI IN LOIN CLOTH RACES FOR HIS TRAIN : Hope of India Ignores Law as He Starts First Leg of London Trip Simla India, Aug. 27 (A.P.). -- Wearing his cobwebby shawl and lion cloth, Mahatma Gandhi entered a small American automobile tonight and made a wild dash from this little shanty, on the slopes of the Himalayas through 100 miles of twisting dangerous roads to the railroad station at Kalka.

ROYAL PAIR GREET GANDHI IN PALACE London, Nov. 5 (U.P.) -- The Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi pattered through the corridors of Buckingham Palace today in sandaled feet, his frail brown body swathed in a voluminous shawl and his thin middle clothed in a loin cloth or more dashing cut than on ordinary occasions, to meet their majesties, King George and Queen Mary.

LOIN-CLOTH ATTIRE OF GANDHI CAUSES LONDON TO TITTER : Robe to Keep Out Chill Worn by Scrawny Little Man Defying Britain. MAHATMA NOT LIKELY TO MAKE VISIT IN U.S. Broadcast by Indian Leader Is to Be Heard in America Today London, Sept. 12 (A.P.) -- London east end slums tittered today at the first sight of Mahatma Gandhi, the scrawny little man who is defying the British Empire.

Gandhi to Visit King George In His Loin Cloth and Shawl London, Oct. 30 (U.P.). -- The Mahatma M.K. Gandhi will don his coarse white loin cloth, homespun shawl and sandals next Thursday and go up to Buckingham Palace to have tea with the king and queen.
Pope and Mahatma Fail in Audience : Gandhi's Refusal to Change Loin Cloth Is Believed Cause;

GANDHI IN LOIN CLOTH RACES FOR HIS TRAIN talks about Gandhi and his path to the round table conference, but none of it really seems to be anything too big a deal; they mention him defying a night ordinance to get there (driving past policemen in the process), and they mention him having faith that the full moon would increase the prospects for a favorable resolution as they say Hindus typically do. One line in particular does say that it would be difficult for anyone to expect that a man looking like that was a figure of great international power, given his attire and few teeth and shaved head.

Gandhi, Clad in Loin Cloth, Is Received by Royalty, from the Washington Post (November 1931 issue) points out that Gandhi ignored the request for formal attire, and reports that he was the center of attention despite the displays of jewels and other expensive items on his colleagues. It also notes that he paid little attention to custom (shaking the hands of the king and queen in "friendly, but not humble" ways, and refusing the tea set out for guests).

LOIN-CLOTH ATTIRE OF GANDHI CAUSES LONDON TO TITTER, from the September 1931 edition of the Washington Post mentions that there was "good humored laughter" over the man who "dared brave the English climate in such garb". Other than that, the article mostly focuses on his possibly going to America, but nothing more.

The Washington Post article (October 31, 1931 issue) titled: Gandhi to Visit King George In His Loin Cloth and Shawl London, talks about how he was warned that the climate might be too rough for just a shawl and loincloth, and mentions that he planned to wear "morning dress" as instructed...which to him meant exactly what he wore.

According to the New York Times (Gandhi, in Loincloth, Meets King and Queen), the King and Queen greeted him very warmly, and were happy to talk to him. When asked what they spoke about, Gandhi said it would be "most undignified" to discuss it. He did, however, say that the King and Queen were "most friendly" towards him, and that he also quite liked the Prince of Wales. It didn't appear there was any animosity, openly anyways, over his garb. It absolutely must have come as a shock, according to most sources, but not because they weren't expecting it: Gandhi had informed everyone at least 4 days in advance that he would be attending in his "morning dress" as defined above.



Now why do you think that in 1930 so many western Newspaper carried articles on Gandhi ? Because he was NOT the representative of India ?

 

[ayesha.a]

Indian national congress was the representative of India and Gandhi represented INC.

Unless you mean the British were the actual representatives of India


BTW, for those who are obsessed about Parrikar's dress, here is something to wonder about,

I would like to repeat what I said earlier, that I am not obsessed about his dress code - Mr Parikkar can wear a kimono or be in his birthday suit. I only care about his performance as DM.

But I don't want history to be viewed purely through the congressi narrative that is thrust on all Indians since birth.

Mr Gandhi did not represent India officially at that time. He was not an elected representative of the country. He represented the congress party.

There was nobody to represent India formally, because unfortunately Indians did not have a platform to express themselves collectively, did not have a parliament of elected representatives, did not have self governance.

Mr Gandhi also had plenty of detractors, and was an authoritarian in his own way, exploiting his charismatic authority.

I don't intend to denigrate him - heaven knows he was a better politician than any the world has seen. But he was not the authoritative representative of India, and nor was anybody else at that time.

Now why do you think that in 1930 so many western Newspaper carried articles on Gandhi ? Because he was NOT the representative of India ?

Because he was a very popular and charismatic politician.

 

[ashok321]

Why Izumo-class and F-35B is a great couple ?

 

[帅的一匹]

wearing floater in Public place is very weird, it shows no respect. he looks more like a peddler than a MD. Chinese defense minister wears army uniform only.

 

[uparyupari]

I would like to repeat what I said earlier, that I am not obsessed about his dress code - Mr Parikkar can wear a kimono or be in his birthday suit. I only care about his performance as DM.

But I don't want history to be viewed purely through the congressi narrative that is thrust on all Indians since birth.

Mr Gandhi did not represent India officially at that time. He was not an elected representative of the country. He represented the congress party.

There was nobody to represent India formally, because unfortunately Indians did not have a platform to express themselves collectively, did not have a parliament of elected representatives, did not have self governance.

Mr Gandhi also had plenty of detractors, and was an authoritarian in his own way, exploiting his charismatic authority.

I don't intend to denigrate him - heaven knows he was a better politician than any the world has seen. But he was not the authoritative representative of India, and nor was anybody else at that time.

Because he was a very popular and charismatic politician.

Good GOD !!!!! Do you even KNOW HISTORY ?

The FIRST INDIAN General Election was held on 1920. The FIRST Indian election was held in 1909. How do you think Muslim League came into existence ?

Do you know what were the Morley-Minto Reforms ? Partition of Bengal ? Rowlatt Committee and its significance ? Simon commission ?

Gandhi and INC asked for freedom for India only in 1929, before that they were only seeking elected representation in the Parliament

Come back to argue when you know History and not assumptions that look like history.

Gandhi was the tallest Indian leader of that day and age. That kind of public support and adulation is what made him "charismatic". Without that he was just a thin old man in a loin cloth.


Gandhi went to the Round Table talks as an authentic representative of India and the British acknowledge the reality by inviting him and arranging for him to meet their Head of State. A meeting NO OTHER Indian Leader had.

 

[ayesha.a]

Good GOD !!!!! Do you even KNOW HISTORY ?

The FIRST INDIAN General Election was held on 1920. The FIRST Indian election was held in 1909. How do you think Muslim League came into existence ?

Do you know what were the Morley-Minto Reforms ? Partition of Bengal ? Rowlatt Committee and its significance ? Simon commission ?

Gandhi and INC asked for freedom for India only in 1929, before that they were only seeking elected representation in the Parliament

Come back to argue when you know History and not assumptions that look like history.

Gandhi was the tallest Indian leader of that day and age. That kind of public support and adulation is what made him "charismatic". Without that he was just a thin old man in a loin cloth.


Gandhi went to the Round Table talks as an authentic representative of India and the British acknowledge the reality by inviting him and arranging for him to meet their Head of State. A meeting NO OTHER Indian Leader had.

Goddamn, there is so much wrong with your post that I don't even know where to begin. I'll try my best.

The FIRST INDIAN General Election was held on 1920.

Oh dear - you are offering this as evidence of Mr Gandhi's representative legitimacy? Are you aware that Mr Gandhi not only did not participate in this election, but urged all Indians to boycott it?

Do you know what were the Morley-Minto Reforms ? Partition of Bengal ? Rowlatt Committee and its significance ? Simon commission ?

I know a lot about each of those, but I don't know what your point is. Stop name-dropping - if you have anything to say, say it. Don't mention each heading in a school textbook and expect me to be impressed. Explain your point, if you even have one.

Gandhi and INC asked for freedom for India only in 1929, before that they were only seeking elected representation in the Parliament

"Seeking" being the operative word.

Come back to argue when you know History and not assumptions that look like history.

Come back when you can muster a coherent point, instead of naming all the headings of a 9th grade schoolbook.

Gandhi was the tallest Indian leader of that day and age. That kind of public support and adulation is what made him "charismatic". Without that he was just a thin old man in a loin cloth.

I acknowledged that, and in fact went a step further, calling him the greatest politician ever. But that doesn't make him an official representative. Neither was Mr Gandhi the official representative of India, nor was the congress party the voice of the nation. Neither then, nor now.

(BTW, "charismatic authority" is a Weberian term. "Charismatic" is not the operative word there, the phrase "charismatic authority" is. I assumed that you would know the context of that phrase. That was my mistake, I should not have assumed that. To keep it brief, I did not simply mean that Mr Gandhi had charisma.)

Gandhi went to the Round Table talks as an authentic representative of India

No. He went as a representative of the congress party.

the British acknowledge the reality by inviting him and arranging for him to meet their Head of State. A meeting NO OTHER Indian Leader had.

Wow, talk about evaluating your own worth through the eyes of others. So what the Brits acknowledged is what mattered? If the Brits also believed that Indians were inferior people who couldn't govern themselves, would that be gospel truth for you?

Of course, the Brits wanted to pretend that Mr Gandhi was the authentic voice of India - that fit perfectly with their plans of having a docile colony at least until the European turmoil came to an end. All other movements that were troublesome for them, including the Azad Hind Fauj, the Muslim league, and many other revolutionaries, were discredited and sidelined.

 

[uparyupari]

Goddamn, there is so much wrong with your post that I don't even know where to begin. I'll try my best.

Do you best. I will correct you everytime.

Oh dear - you are offering this as evidence of Mr Gandhi's representative legitimacy? Are you aware that Mr Gandhi not only did not participate in this election, but urged all Indians to boycott it?

Nope, Evidence of Representative politics in India. Don't worry about what I know, lets focus on where you were wrong.

I know a lot about each of those, but I don't know what your point is. Stop name-dropping - if you have anything to say, say it. Don't mention each heading in a school textbook and expect me to be impressed. Explain your point, if you even have one.

They are the paths though which the elected representation in India passed. Know your history. Your posts does not show you know enough about them, so its hard to take your word for it.

"Seeking" being the operative word.

Nope. Elections in 1909 were successful. Elections in 1920 were successful too. It did not go the way Gandhi wanted, people voted in large numbers.

Come back when you can muster a coherent point, instead of naming all the headings of a 9th grade schoolbook.

LOL. So far I am the ONLY one making a coherent point. You have got pretty much everything wrong. From understanding elected representatives from India in those days to understanding Gandhis stature and British recognition of his leadership.

I acknowledged that, and in fact went a step further, calling him the greatest politician ever. But that doesn't make him an official representative. Neither was Mr Gandhi the official representative of India, nor was the congress party the voice of the nation. Neither then, nor now.

WRONG AGAIN. Indian National Congress won the 1934 elections handsomely and was the largest party in Parliament

INC had 42 seats, CNP had 12 seats, Independents had seats.

In 1941, INC had 40 seats, Muslim League had 25 seats, CNP had 11 seats.

Better Still Gandhi Remained the sole leader respected by INC, CNP and Muslim League. This was recognized and acknowledge by the British. Even in 1930.

(BTW, "charismatic authority" is a Weberian term. "Charismatic" is not the operative word there, the phrase "charismatic authority" is. I assumed that you would know the context of that phrase. That was my mistake, I should not have assumed that. To keep it brief, I did not simply mean that Mr Gandhi had charisma.)

LOL. Nice Try, you said "popular and charismatic politician", Not "charismatic authority"

How about some Integrity ? I guess not.

No. He went as a representative of the congress party.

WRONG AGAIN. In the Conference, Gandhi declared that HE was the sole representative of ALL INDIANS. Not just the INC.

The British acknowledged his claim and that is why he met their head of state. In his capacity as Representative of ALL Indians.

Wow, talk about evaluating your own worth through the eyes of others. So what the Brits acknowledged is what mattered? If the Brits also believed that Indians were inferior people who couldn't govern themselves, would that be gospel truth for you?

LOL. Since the talk was between the British an Indians, their acknowledgement was the Only one that mattered

What good was the Acknowledgement of Americans or Germans ? .......... it was useless.

Of course, the Brits wanted to pretend that Mr Gandhi was the authentic voice of India - that fit perfectly with their plans of having a docile colony at least until the European turmoil came to an end. All other movements that were troublesome for them, including the Azad Hind Fauj, the Muslim league, and many other revolutionaries, were discredited and sidelined.

British had to acknowledge it because Gandhi launched the Civil Disobedience Movement that ROCKED the whole of India and especially the British Empire.

Gandhi MADE the british acknowledge his power. It was no act of charity or delusion. Azad Hind Fauj was started in 1942 ........... they did not even exit in the time frame we are discussing.

As I said, Learn some History before you come to debate it.

 

[Matrixx]

is there no dress code for a defense minister? Seriously, why are all becoming kejriwal class phony down to earth people? He is fuking defense minister of india. Have a proper dress code and wear shoes instead of wearing floaters.

you must be congressi.....

 

[ashok321]

Guys the caption is about M Parekar the DM and IZUMI.

WTF is going on with Congress/Gandhis and other such shik?