Muslim and Hindu leaders who were loyalists of British Empire

[Indrani]

We, Indians are traditionally good story tellers

None more so than the commie historians who passed off fables, rather sick revisions, as history to Indians.

 

[scorpionx]

None more so than the commie historians who passed off fables, rather sick revisions, as history to Indians.

Off Course. History is witness what our right wing historians are capable of.

 

[Kurama]

dont hit your head on the way out ...

here are some more comments from INDIANS

ABSilver : 3436
December 6, 2012, 09:27 PM IST
Nehru and his mentor Gandhi were bisexual as was Lord Mountbatten. That is why Mountbatten didn't mind Edwina's relationship with Nehru. In all likelihood they also had threesome orgies. Nehru got the most from these relationships, "tremendous power" and Kingdom of India.
reply

ABCSilver : 3257
December 7, 2012, 08:01 AM IST
Sardar Patel and Gandhi had lot of those in Pune prison. Be it Sabarmati or Sevagram, Sardar Patel was a permanent fixture.


Phd in HistoryBronze : 0

December 6, 2012, 06:25 PM IST
Grandfather of Nehru was a muslim mughal, his name was Ghiyasuddin Gazi. Thats why Nehru was a hard core hindu hater and had a deep soft corner for muslims. When Britishers invaded India and started targetting and attacking Mughal rulers then Ghiyasuddin Gazi changed his name to a hindu name, to protect himself from British assault on mughals. Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi used to make love physically and were more of a lovers then friends. Mahatma Gandhi was a bisexual. Thats why Gandhi elected Nehru as PM, but wast majority of Indians and congress men wanted Sardar Patel as PM. History would have been very different with Sardar Patel as PM.

damn these bisexuals....
thats may be the reason by gandhi favoured him as congress president... even when no one liked him...

 

[Indrani]

History is witness what our right wing historians are capable of.

Of course. The correct history of the natives as told by the natives. Nothing like knowing your own self and your own past.

None of the garbled history like the commies. Passing off Taj Mahal as a monument of love. Do commies understand "love." The guy had a harem of 5000+ women.

Passing off Nehru-Edwina as platonic affair. May be a sainthood for Edwina for her chastity is in order. Next to Mother Teresa's Missionary of Charity commies can also start St. Edwina's platonic love chapel.

 

[FaujHistorian]

list is not all complete, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was the biggest Puppet of west, Also that Shah Mehmood Kasuri's grand dad was another puppet and so was the grand dad of Dr Arbab Ghulam Raheem. In fact when British Queen gave the distinction of being 'Sir' to Salman Rushdie Dr Arbab Ghulam Raheem gave them back his Grand dad's distinction of 'Sir'.

And we know to whom that Queen give the ''Honor'' of Sir!

Good point.

I doubt the OP was meant as a complete list.

it is just showing the Islamists who now claim as champions of freedom, as British puppets.

As far Sir Syed is concerned, no one is claiming that he was a 2-bit militant. Heck no!

 

[SrNair]

Good point.

I doubt the OP was meant as a complete list.

it is just showing the Islamists who now claim as champions of freedom, as British puppets.

As far Sir Syed is concerned, no one is claiming that he was a 2-bit militant. Heck no!

@FaujHistorian.
Now I like to ask a genuine question.British leaders saw Gandhi in a racist mentality as a second class human.
He attend round table Conference with his own traditional attire.That is why Winston Churchill called him as a half naked Fakir.
If Gandhi was in that much love with British then why didnt he follow a British culture.Until death he always loved our Indian culture.
British and Western nations are too smart in soaping their opponents for convince them or criticizing others in the name of human rights.Still they follow that way either intimidating tactics or convincing tactics .Why we cant see British award to Gandhi in such a perspective.?Convincing him for their own interests.
And also same British used suppression tactics against Gandhi

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian.
Now I like to ask a genuine question.British leaders saw Gandhi in a racist mentality as a second class human.

Goras do not given their highest medal to second class human.

Please update your understanding and don't go on outwards appearances of politicians.

 

[SrNair]

Goras do not given their highest medal to second class human.

Please update your understanding and don't go on outwards appearances of politicians.

But at the end he undermined British rule in India.
And Gandhi own method unified India.
If British want to do something like you said, it for their own interest.In here their interest was to rule India.But theydont get that.
And India didnt follow Gandhiji non violence method .We fought 5 bloody wars after our independence.
According to our history British betrays Gandhiji after World War .He helped him for our independence.But they didnt give that.

 

[FaujHistorian]

But at the end he undermined British rule in India.

Gandhi's antics didn't undermine, they extended British rule all the way to 1947.

If he was smart, British would have left just before or after the first round table conference.

 

[SrNair]

Gandhi's antics didn't undermine, they extended British rule all the way to 1947.

If he was smart, British would have left just before or after the first round table conference.

We know that Gandhis policy was not that effective.
It was the Red Fort Mutiny that cause the end of British rule in India.
But his tactics in other way.It unified the India in its present form.
Let look it in other way.If someone like Gandhi start a revolt against British .Did you actually think it cause for the unfication of our country?
We are not chinese with single language and culture.
So an armed revolt will only cause further disintegration of the country.
Still we have problem of North Indian looby and South Indian lobby.
If some one start armsrevolting against British under NI leader.South Indians especially Tamils might dont accept that during that time.

 

[FaujHistorian]

We know that Gandhis policy was not that effective.
It was the Red Fort Mutiny that cause the end of British rule in India.
But his tactics in other way.It unified the India in its present form.
Let look it in other way.If someone like Gandhi start a revolt against British .Did you actually think it cause for the unfication of our country?
We are not chinese with single language and culture.
So an armed revolt will only cause further disintegration of the country.
Still we have problem of North Indian looby and South Indian lobby.
If some one start armsrevolting against British under NI leader.South Indians especially Tamils might dont accept that during that time.

you can get from point A to B in 10 months or 10 years. your choice.

Gandhi tactics took the 10 year route. Perhaps helping British to extend their time here.

 

[INDIC]

Gandhi's antics didn't undermine, they extended British rule all the way to 1947.

If he was smart, British would have left just before or after the first round table conference.

British were all powerful until world war 2 so you are wrong in your viewpoint.

 

[M. Sarmad]

@Azlan Haider by reading your comments I only get an impression that you are trying to portray those Muslims against partition of India as some kind of traitor to Muslims. Pakistan movement wasn't anything divine it was just a political movement, so its not good you go around abusing them if they stayed out of Pakistan movement. Anyway, partition was very suitable since Congress and Muslim League were agreed on almost nothing, most idiot was expecting Hindus to give up their political representation to appease Muslim League. It would had been a disaster for India, we would never going to get a constitution and independent India was going to face lot many hurdles in framing constitution and other key issues like feudalism, princely state/reorganization of provinces, power to centre, languages and many other things.

You are getting that impression because you are not "reading" my comments actually ... A lot of Mullahs in KPK were on the payroll of the British (as revealed by Sir Cunningham`s diaries) , and they used them against the anti god bolsheviks ... the "Jihad incorporation" founded by the British served them well ( A protection against USSR`s possible aggression , i.e hanging around the soviet neck the albatross of Islam .. ) ...... and these Mullahs didn`t oppose Pakistan movement , they were enemies of the pro congress socialists of KPK !! The history of the British India is very complicated , Your problem is that you try to develop an "over simplified" view of highly complex situations and come up with absurd conclusions usually ....

 

[LURKER]

Gandhi's antics didn't undermine, they extended British rule all the way to 1947.

If he was smart, British would have left just before or after the first round table conference.

Can you elaborate more on the first sentence, how could have Gandhi coaxed British to leave their prized possession at the peak of their power ??

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Good point.

I doubt the OP was meant as a complete list.

it is just showing the Islamists who now claim as champions of freedom, as British puppets.

As far Sir Syed is concerned, no one is claiming that he was a 2-bit militant. Heck no!

He was a Molvi sir, a parha likha Mulla the brain child of Two Nation Theory!!!

As far as Molvis r concern they are a real shame not but to our Nation but for Islam as well. Do u know sir Jamat e Islam was against the creation of Pakistan till the last second!

BTW here is more abt Shah Mehmood Qureshi!!! He is a jageer daar of Multan! in 1913's Tahreek e Rashmi Rumaal against British his grand dad sided with British and act as their spy in making sure it fails. And in response to his loyalty the Queen and the British indian gov gave him large piece of land where he became the Landlord!!!