*Must read* The Untold Census Story

[livingdead]

No one liked Nehru then, which is why he did not win a single vote of congress working committee. If "lesser" men were wiser to his lack of merit, how come the "Mahatama" so dumb.



Hindu scriptures have always called for protection of Dharma. Our greatest epics are war epics. To give in to adharma and be a coward walkover is a legacy of Gandhi.

 

[Indischer]

A rude awakening it was. A painful process to come out of the web of lies spun by congress all these years. To see all your heroes turned to dust is not something pleasant, but truth is truth and there is no hiding from it.

Being partial towards Nehru was indeed a mistake. But that's still not worth killing him. I won't say people shouldn't have divergent views about Gandhiji's legacy. But what I feel really bad about is his death being trivialized or made fun of. It also forever tarnished RSSS's reputation, which was avoidable.

The only man who opposed partition within the Congress was killed for failing to prevent partition.

 

[madhu_greenleaf]

Being partial towards Nehru was indeed a mistake. But that's still not worth killing him. I won't say people shouldn't have divergent views about Gandhiji's legacy. But what I feel really bad about is his death being trivialized or made fun of. It also forever tarnished RSSS's reputation, which was avoidable.

The only man who opposed partition within the Congress was killed for failing to prevent partition.

He said partition over his dead body, he should have kept his word. His tactics only worked with the Hindus, never with the Muslims. Why did he not go on fast when the Muslims went on a killing spree?

His Dharma was not violated when he asked Indians to fight war on behalf of the British empire? Only when the Hindus retaliated? RSS for all its might did fail Hindus. It watched over the corrupt country India became and the vote bank politics without a murmur. In all these years RSS has never taken a political stand for Hindus ever.

 

[Indischer]

He said partition over his dead body, he should have kept his word. His tactics only worked with the Hindus, never with the Muslims. Why did he not go on fast when the Muslims went on a killing spree?

His Dharma was not violated when he asked Indians to fight war on behalf of the British empire? Only when the Hindus retaliated? RSS for all its might did fail Hindus. It watched over the corrupt country India became and the vote bank politics without a murmur. In all these years RSS has never taken a political stand for Hindus ever.

You must never forget that at the core of his being, he was a politician. If he really sacrificed himself over every event that he disagreed with, he wouldn't have been effective either. His genius was in forcing a moral burden upon his adversary, and compell him to do the right thing. In tune with our Dharmic principles, IMO. But to assassinate HIM, of all people? If he really wasn't responsible for our independence in a big way, he wouldn't have been touched.

 

[madhu_greenleaf]

You must never forget that at the core of his being, he was a politician. If he really sacrificed himself over every event that he disagreed with, he wouldn't have been effective either. His genius was in forcing a moral burden upon his adversary, and compell him to do the right thing. In tune with our Dharmic principles, IMO. But to assassinate HIM, of all people? If he really wasn't responsible for our independence in a big way, he wouldn't have been touched.

An over rated politician. A man responsible for the mess India finds itself in. What moral burden did he press on anyone? Pakistan happened. The killings happened. India until today is a walkover of a country. The pusillanimity he bred in Hindus until today is responsible for even Hindu men not coming to help of a woman getting molested on the street. After all nonviolence is our prime Dharma. He was not responsible for our freedom. A politically awakened public would have trashed the British out of India long before but for Gandhi's delaying tactics.

 

[Dem!god]

You must never forget that at the core of his being, he was a politician. If he really sacrificed himself over every event that he disagreed with, he wouldn't have been effective either. His genius was in forcing a moral burden upon his adversary, and compell him to do the right thing. In tune with our Dharmic principles, IMO. But to assassinate HIM, of all people? If he really wasn't responsible for our independence in a big way, he wouldn't have been touched.

I think she is giving you tough fight......

 

[madhu_greenleaf]

His legacy, India has spent all its energy the last 66 years just being "secular." Yet it gets laughed at for its "secularism." Hindus have been herded into fearing "communal." They gave up development, good administration, law and order and justice, and kept voting only for "noncommunal parties" only to hold up Gandhi's dream of being "secular." Millions must have died of poverty, lack of medicines and treatment, snake bites, preventable diseases all because of the corrupt parties which kept winning elections. Congrats. All that deaths in the name of secularism.

 

[Indischer]

An over rated politician. A man responsible for the mess India finds itself in. What moral burden did he press on anyone? Pakistan happened. The killings happened. India until today is a walkover of a country. The pusillanimity he bred in Hindus until today is responsible for even Hindu men not coming to help of a woman getting molested on the street. After all nonviolence is our prime Dharma. He was not responsible for our freedom. A politically awakened public would have trashed the British out of India long before but for Gandhi's delaying tactics.

Fair enough. Maybe he delayed it. But to me, the manner of our struggle gives me immense pride. And think about the proliferation of arms had we adopted a violent insurrection to gain our independence. With at least 560 kingdoms, we'd have just as many reasons to turn those weapons on each other. Pakistan happened, true. But things could have been much worse too.

It's not like a numerically superior Hindu populace wouldn't have won a Civil War in India.But 300 million fighting a 100 million? We'd surpass the WW-2 bodycount within a year. And for what joy? Just to have a land where one could practice Dharma?

I think she is giving you tough fight......

I enjoy a stimulating conversation every time, as long as the discussion is civil.

 

[scorpionx]

Gandhiji's design of Independence movement had severe flaws,neither it was free from feeble humanly errors. His Khilafat movement was completely out of touch with Moderate Islamic principles,his party did not find it unscrupulous to associate itself with radical Muslim outfits like Majlis E ahrar in the 20's and his untimely quit India movement hugely added political advantage to all it's adversaries when eminent Congressi leaders were put in Ahmad Nagar jail at a crucial point of freedom movement.

But, the question is do these errors and finally the partition justify Mr.Gandhi's assassination? I am afraid it does not. His killing can no way be looked as a righteous choice in a civilized society. This is the path of barbarians who after finding it difficult to pave their own way in decision making through out Indian freedom history are no way the right people to judge whether Mr.Gandhi was correct or wrong.
I find it quite amusing that our Pseudo Hindutvawadi's here have no knowledge about their own freedom history (Not a matter of surprise in this forum though). I look it as a pity to see these radical observers and commentators sorrily groping in darkness to find a suitable ideology, without knowing that it was Hindu Mahasabha which was preaching for partition right from 1915 along with their arch enemies,the League.When the partition became imminent these pathetic lot started shading crocodile tears and turned into vanguard of United India!!Now our ignorant friends are coming with justifications behind Mr.Gandhi's brutal murder. This is nothing but an appalling academic,as well as moral bankruptcy not quite unusual from these lot,anyway.

 

[madhu_greenleaf]

Fair enough. Maybe he delayed it. But to me, the manner of our struggle gives me immense pride. And think about the proliferation of arms had we adopted a violent insurrection to gain our independence. With at least 560 kingdoms, we'd have just as many reasons to turn those weapons on each other. Pakistan happened, true. But things could have been much worse too.

It's not like a numerically superior Hindu populace wouldn't have won a Civil War in India.But 300 million fighting a 100 million? We'd surpass the WW-2 bodycount within a year. And for what joy? Just to have a land where one could practice Dharma?

It does not give me any pride. Just exposes our hypocrisy. If nonviolence is our ethos, then should we not be disbanding our army and police force entirely? Hate, anger, rage these are all valid expressions, antibodies produced in response to a threatening environment. If we were to remove the words "anger, hate, rage, despair" and such from any language, the language itself would be crippled and become redundant. So what of humans. What Gandhi was asking of Hindus was to de-humanize, a zombie which is not able to respond to its environment in all its range.

Hindu pride was in full flow then. The masses responded to Tilak and Gandhi because it was a Hindu resurgence. All the Hindu kingdoms came in without much drama anyway, they were not inspired by Gandhi. There was a coming together of the Hindu mind.

We would have been a Hindu land then. Most would have converted to Hinduism.

 

[godofwar]

It does not give me any pride. Just exposes our hypocrisy. If nonviolence is our ethos, then should we not be disbanding our army and police force entirely? Hate, anger, rage these are all valid expressions, antibodies produced in response to a threatening environment. If we were to remove the words "anger, hate, rage, despair" and such from any language, the language itself would be crippled and become redundant. So what of humans. What Gandhi was asking of Hindus was to de-humanize, a zombie which is not able to respond to its environment in all its range.

Hindu pride was in full flow then. The masses responded to Tilak and Gandhi because it was a Hindu resurgence. All the Hindu kingdoms came in without much drama anyway, they were not inspired by Gandhi. There was a coming together of the Hindu mind.

We would have been a Hindu land then. Most would have converted to Hinduism.

Who cares ?
All religions are dying out slowly anyways.
We should promote humanity and science, not religion.

 

[madhu_greenleaf]

Who cares ?
All religions are dying out slowly anyways.
We should promote humanity and science, not religion.

We do care. The only free mind today is not an atheist's mind or an Abrahamic religion follower's mind. It is the Hindu mind. Science is stuck where it was 80-90 years ago. Technology is what is developing. Much of the future of science is falling in line with what the Hindus have known for eons.

 

[Indischer]

It does not give me any pride. Just exposes our hypocrisy. If nonviolence is our ethos, then should we not be disbanding our army and police force entirely? Hate, anger, rage these are all valid expressions, antibodies produced in response to a threatening environment. If we were to remove the words "anger, hate, rage, despair" and such from any language, the language itself would be crippled and become redundant. So what of humans. What Gandhi was asking of Hindus was to de-humanize, a zombie which is not able to respond to its environment in all its range.

Hindu pride was in full flow then. The masses responded to Tilak and Gandhi because it was a Hindu resurgence. All the Hindu kingdoms came in without much drama anyway, they were not inspired by Gandhi. There was a coming together of the Hindu mind.

We would have been a Hindu land then. Most would have converted to Hinduism.

It has to do with connotations of Good and Bad. Our anger needs legitimacy, not our Love. Why do you think the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 is hated but not the 1991 Gulf War campaign? Even superpowers aren't beyond that. And under a nonviolent freedom struggle, our credibility as the better men only soared. Contrary to the popular perception, none other than Gandhi were truly National leaders. Most others held regional sway.

 

[madhu_greenleaf]

It has to do with connotations of Good and Bad. Our anger needs legitimacy, not our Love. Why do you think the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 is hated but not the 1991 Gulf War campaign? Even superpowers aren't beyond that. And under a nonviolent freedom struggle, our credibility as the better men only soared. Contrary to the popular perception, none other than Gandhi were truly National leaders. Most others held regional sway.

Hindus had legitimacy for rage. They had not had justice for all that happened on their land and to them. They still have not had. Hindus had legitimacy for hate. It was the leaders of Hindus who betrayed them and still betray them to this date.

Undue love is just as imbalancing and distortion producing as undue hate. A lover of Taliban is an enabler even if he himself is not Taliban.

Gandhi was just one among a galaxy of leaders. A huge section of Indian population had stopped caring what Gandhi wanted. The muslims certainly did not care. Even among the Hindus.

 

[Indischer]

Hindus had legitimacy for rage. They had not had justice for all that happened on their land and to them. They still have not had. Hindus had legitimacy for hate. It was the leaders of Hindus who betrayed them and still betray them to this date.

Undue love is just as imbalancing and distortion producing as undue hate. A lover of Taliban is an enabler even if he himself is not Taliban.

Gandhi was just one among a galaxy of leaders. A huge section of Indian population had stopped caring what Gandhi wanted. The muslims certainly did not care. Even among the Hindus.

As I told earlier, if that is the case, every leader meets the criteria to be assasinated, not just Gandhi. I personally wish nobody was.