*Must read* The Untold Census Story

[GorkhaPride]

sorry to disappoint u....
even the old man disappointed me....he didn't even said sorry......
don't expect too much from me.....I have failed people many times......I too have limitations.....

I have the exact same view on Gandhi as you.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Numbers of Muslims in India is underreported for political reasons, I honestly think it is already close to 30% maybe even more yet no sharia demands?

How did you come to this conclusion ? I have heard this come from Right wing Hindu scare mongers or some section of Muslims. Both not every credible as they never provide proof. Living in India i never felt Muslims were more than 15-20% max.

This is purely wishful thinking. There is nothing to back this up.

1. Pole vaulters have probably been given citizenship in India by Congress as they have been voting in elections, i believe. Even if we take into account the pole vaulters, they are just about 3 million according to UN.

2. The last census was held during BJP rule in which Muslim percentage in India was 13.4 %. Even if Congress is lying, the number couldn't have jumped too high. I don't expect more than 16 % going by the Pew Research data.

I think those numbers do not take into account pole jumpers that is why and GOI does not want to release real results. I think you will get an accurate account when a new government comes into the center.



.

Quoted

 

[Indischer]

sorry to disappoint u....
even the old man disappointed me....he didn't even said sorry......
don't expect too much from me.....I have failed people many times......I too have limitations.....

I'm not you girlfriend.

Gandhiji stood for Indians, not Hindus. He wasn't harsh on any community, neither did he advocate partition. He wanted the upliftment of Dalits and stressed on self-sufficiency and that India's essence lay in villages. He was brutally honest about his own life and it's shortcomings. Why was it good that he got shot, again?

 

[Dem!god]

I'm not you girlfriend.

Gandhiji stood for Indians, not Hindus. He wasn't harsh on any community, neither did he advocate partition. He wanted the upliftment of Dalits and stressed on self-sufficiency and that India's essence lay in villages. He was brutally honest about his own life and it's shortcomings. Why was it good that he got shot, again?

you cannot be my girlfriend .....

I am not against his work on dalits.....even I support his works on dalit.....
but did he really stood for indians or only for his ego and a few from congress...... he was brutally honest with his life ..naybe...he was...but not with others....

 

[Indischer]

you cannot be my girlfriend .....

I am not against his work on dalits.....even I support his works on dalit.....
but did he really stood for indians or only for his ego and a few from congress...... he was brutally honest with his life ..naybe...he was...but not with others....

Going by your logic, who doesn't deserve to be shot then?

And what ego are you talking about? Can you name a few examples which prove he had an ego problem?

 

[Dem!god]

Going by your logic, who doesn't deserve to be shot then?

me.....

And what ego are you talking about? Can you name a few examples which prove he had an ego problem?

there are many....bhagat singh, subhash chandra bose, and nehru are the most prominent one.....

 

[Indischer]

me.....



there are many....bhagat singh, subhash chandra bose, and nehru are the most prominent one.....

Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose espoused violence, which went against his concept of Ahimsa. His ideas were, ironically, drawn from the Hindu scriptures. Ahimsa Paramo Dharmaha. He disagreed with their methods, but how is that a crime to be worth shot at? He may have favoured Nehru over Patel, which is a mistake in hindsight. But how could he have known that in 1947?

 

[Dem!god]

Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose espoused violence, which went against his concept of Ahimsa. His ideas were, ironically, drawn from the Hindu scriptures. Ahimsa Paramo Dharmaha. He disagreed with their methods, but how is that a crime to be worth shot at? He may have favoured Nehru over Patel, which is a mistake in hindsight. But how could he have known that in 1947?

Indian scriptures also preach to defend our nation with blood and sword.....
and bhaghat singh did espoused violence but didn't gandhi did the same with signing their death warrant..where is ahamisa in it....
and about subash bose he never went on violence unless and untill he was forcibly removed from congress......
his hindsight was not because it was 1947 but because of his over love and affection for nehru........

 

[Indischer]

Indian scriptures also preach to defend our nation with blood and sword.....
and bhaghat singh did espoused violence but didn't gandhi did the same with signing their death warrant..where is ahamisa in it....
and about subash bose he never went on violence unless and untill he was forcibly removed from congress......
his hindsight was not because it was 1947 but because of his over love and affection for nehru........

Gandhi signed Bhagat Singh's death warrant? Who told you such rubbish?

And neither Bhagat Singh's nor Subhash Chandra Bose's tactics were capable of reaching out to all our countrymen like the way Gandhiji could. And do you really think without the structured manner in which power was transferred to Indian hands, a unified India under Central rule was possible? In the power vacuum of armed conflict and civil wars, many a strong Nation has fallen in the past. Our's wasn't even politically united to begin with!

 

[Dem!god]

Gandhi signed Bhagat Singh's death warrant? Who told you such rubbish?

you need to know..it if u don't...

And neither Bhagat Singh's nor Subhash Chandra Bose's tactics were capable of reaching out to all our countrymen like the way Gandhiji could. And do you really think without the structured manner in which power was transferred to Indian hands, a unified India under Central rule was possible? In the power vacuum of armed conflict and civil wars, many a strong Nation has fallen in the past. Our's wasn't even politically united to begin with!

you never know unless u try.....
it was never gandhi who managed freedom for india...it was more of WW II and IN revolt and azad hind fauj ..who eared victory over Britishers......
and again for the power vacuum and transfer of power it was vallav bhai patel not gandhi who played any role......

 

[Falcon29]

Muslims will eat them lol?

LOL! I too was wondering what's going on, is India afraid of rising Muslim population?

 

[Indischer]

you need to know..it if u don't...


you never know unless u try.....
it was never gandhi who managed freedom for india...it was more of WW II and IN revolt and azad hind fauj ..who eared victory over Britishers......
and again for the power vacuum and transfer of power it was vallav bhai patel not gandhi who played any role......

And Vallabh Bhai Patel chose to remain with and under Gandhi. Why? WW-2 certainly helped, in that it weakened Britain from within. But do you really believe Azad Hind Fauj, which allied itself with the Germans and Japanese, and which lost both the Imphal and Kohima battles with the Royal Indian Army, contributed significantly to our independence?!

LOL! I too was wondering what's going on, is India afraid of rising Muslim population?

It has more to do with the victim card played by our Muslims and the associated insecurity of Hindus losing ground. If they're really being persecuted as is being portrayed by many outsiders and some of our own Muslims, their numbers shouldn't actually be growing at such healthy rates.

 

[Dem!god]

And Vallabh Bhai Patel chose to remain with and under Gandhi. Why? WW-2 certainly helped, in that it weakened Britain from within. But do you really believe Azad Hind Fauj, which allied itself with the Germans and Japanese, and which lost both the Imphal and Kohima battles with the Royal Indian Army, contributed significantly to our independence?!

there were not many options at that time.....
no..it was not kohima and imphal....
but what happened at the trials of those soldiers and the aftermath of it......the revolt of the armed forces was the main reason for the britishers to withdraw......
no imperial power can with hold the country without the support of the local army......and britishers got that in 1957..they didn't want another one...which will mud their whatever name they saved by winning the allied side....

 

[Falcon29]

And Vallabh Bhai Patel chose to remain with and under Gandhi. Why? WW-2 certainly helped, in that it weakened Britain from within. But do you really believe Azad Hind Fauj, which allied itself with the Germans and Japanese, and which lost both the Imphal and Kohima battles with the Royal Indian Army, contributed significantly to our independence?!



It has more to do with the victim card played by our Muslims and the associated insecurity of Hindus losing ground. If they're really being persecuted as is being portrayed by many outsiders and some of our own Muslims, their numbers shouldn't actually be growing at such healthy rates.

Well I'm not so familiar with the situation so I'm not aware of claims made by outsiders. Maybe they mean some of their rights are violated and not persecution?

 

[Indischer]

there were not many options at that time.....
no..it was not kohima and imphal....
but what happened at the trials of those soldiers and the aftermath of it......the revolt of the armed forces was the main reason for the britishers to withdraw......
no imperial power can with hold the country without the support of the local army......and britishers got that in 1957..they didn't want another one...which will mud their whatever name they saved by winning the allied side....

That possibility of a revolt being the reason why the Brits fled is a big fabrication. The leaders of the Azad Hind Fauj were pardoned and the soldiers never mutineed. So what reason did the Brits have to 'run away' from India? And at a time when they had fought and won a World War? Contrary to what you may think, our non-violent independence struggle had gathered enough momentum to warrant independence. The Brits, on the other hand, elected the Labour Party under Clement Attlee, who had it in his manifesto that India would be granted independence.

Well I'm not so familiar with the situation so I'm not aware of claims made by outsiders. Maybe they mean some of their rights are violated and not persecution?

Precisely why I said they play the victim card, which irks the majority. NONE of their rights are violated in India.