Nehru and Savarkar

[SrNair]

Wow! Are you a psychologist?
He might be a mallu. But he is a brahmin for sure. Only the Brahmin ones are so casteist. imo non Brahmin mallus don't have that much hatred.
RSS is pretty strong in Kerala. He might be brainwashed by them.

These RSS brahmins always pretend to be non discriminating. But if you push them a little bit they show their casteist nature.

Have you ever come across a Pakistani false flagger who is fluent in marathi?

I am an Indian who sees real India not what the media or bollywood tries to portray. It is truly most bigoted and hateful country in the world.

He is an upper caste Hindu on Kerala but not Brahmin

Who told you they are not beautiful ? @SrNair.

Well I have seen the so called Brahmins north abd south several times

 

[sankranti]

He is an upper caste Hindu on Kerala but not Brahmin

Well I have seen the so called Brahmins north abd south several times

Are you referring to your tryst with indrajit gupta a.k.a joe shearer ?

 

[SrNair]

Are you referring to your tryst with indrajit gupta a.k.a joe shearer ?

who is that ?
My point was that I know the Brahmins .
Where did you find that they all are beautiful ?

 

[Jackdaws]

The problem with Savarkar isn't his patriotism - the problem is his world-view. He wanted to segregate Muslims in the same way as African-Americans were in the US.

An interview from 1944 -

https://www.dailyo.in/politics/tom-...ationalist-hindu-mahasabha/story/1/20207.html

There is probably nothing more dangerous than a patriot with radical views. Because he is not playing vote-bank politics - he genuinely believes in the superiority of his religion, his beliefs and has no qualms in throwing "the other" under the bus.

I know right wing ideology in India is on the upswing. It is on the upswing around the world. I believe this is because the genuine liberals who saw the excesses of right wing thought around the world during WW-2 are now dead or too old to be part of the discourse.

The so-called liberals now are more interested in being politically correct than being truly liberal. This has created an even bigger space for right-wing thought.

As a kid I grew up admiring Savarkar - because his thoughts did not really find space in Amar Chitra Katha comics. But the more you read about him, you realize that his thoughts are dangerous. His patriotism, even if altruistic and well-intentioned, gave birth to thoughts and ideals which should not be celebrated in our society. If you want to celebrate those who suffered under the British and took up arms - you can always celebrate Bose, Rajguru, Bhagat Singh, Azad. There isn't a dearth. Don't put Savarkar on a pedestal - it is recipe for unmitigated disaster.

@joeshearer probably knows more about this than I do.

 

[sankranti]

The problem with Savarkar isn't his patriotism - the problem is his world-view. He wanted to segregate Muslims in the same way as African-Americans were in the US.

An interview from 1944 -

https://www.dailyo.in/politics/tom-...ationalist-hindu-mahasabha/story/1/20207.html

There is probably nothing more dangerous than a patriot with radical views. Because he is not playing vote-bank politics - he genuinely believes in the superiority of his religion, his beliefs and has no qualms in throwing "the other" under the bus.

I know right wing ideology in India is on the upswing. It is on the upswing around the world. I believe this is because the genuine liberals who saw the excesses of right wing thought around the world during WW-2 are now dead or too old to be part of the discourse.

The so-called liberals now are more interested in being politically correct than being truly liberal. This has created an even bigger space for right-wing thought.

As a kid I grew up admiring Savarkar - because his thoughts did not really find space in Amar Chitra Katha comics. But the more you read about him, you realize that his thoughts are dangerous. His patriotism, even if altruistic and well-intentioned, gave birth to thoughts and ideals which should not be celebrated in our society. If you want to celebrate those who suffered under the British and took up arms - you can always celebrate Bose, Rajguru, Bhagat Singh, Azad. There isn't a dearth. Don't put Savarkar on a pedestal - it is recipe for unmitigated disaster.

@joeshearer probably knows more about this than I do.

Islam too is unabashedly convinced about the superiority of its own religion and history is evidence of who got thrown down under the bus. (remember the name Hindu-Kush ?) Same with Xtianity.

Its prophet too segregated Kafirs and Non Kafirs and Abeed and between Ashraf and Ajlaf. So what is your comment on islamic world view ?

What is that you said ? "even if altruistic and well-intentioned, gave birth to thoughts and ideals which should not be celebrated in our society. " How ironic if you understand what I mean.

Finally Savarkar was a product of his time, the same way Nehru and Gandhi was a product of their time. Both flawed, and moulded by the colonial experience.

Yet the same people have no qualms about putting Nehru and Gandhi on a pedestal, but have a problem with Savarkar. THIS Hypocrisy is the defining characteristics of "secular" Indians.

who is that ?
My point was that I know the Brahmins .
Where did you find that they all are beautiful ?

He is the subject of your penis envy. The owner of the mug you find 'noble'. LOL.

 

[Jackdaws]

Islam too is unabashedly convinced about the superiority of its own religion and history is evidence of who got thrown down under the bus. (remember the name Hindu-Kush ?) Same with Xtianity.

Its prophet too segregated Kafirs and Non Kafirs and Abeed and between Ashraf and Ajlaf. So what is your comment on islamic world view ?

What is that you said ? "even if altruistic and well-intentioned, gave birth to thoughts and ideals which should not be celebrated in our society. " How ironic if you understand what I mean.

Finally Savarkar was a product of his time, the same way Nehru and Gandhi was a product of his time. Both flawed, and moulded by the colonial experience.

Yet the same people have no qualms about putting Nehru and Gandhi on a pedestal, but have a problem with Savarkar. THIS Hypocrisy is the defining characteristics of "secular" Indians.

Of course - you are right - every Abrahamic faith considers itself superior. This is not the case with the Dharmic line of thought which places an emphasis on equality.

And of course segregation is wrong - whether promoted by a Prophet or a Government. Who is disputing that? I don't want India to be apartheid era South African, 1950s USA or present day Saudi Arabia. Do you?

 

[sankranti]

Of course - you are right - every Abrahamic faith considers itself superior. This is not the case with the Dharmic line of thought which places an emphasis on equality.

And of course segregation is wrong - whether promoted by a Prophet or a Government. Who is disputing that? I don't want India to be apartheid era South African, 1950s USA or present day Saudi Arabia. Do you?

And yet you have no qualms about putting the quran on a pedestal, do you ? or Nehru or gandhi for that matter.

You only have a problem with putting Savarkar on a pedestal after he sacrificed his entire life for the cause of all Indians.

 

[SrNair]

Islam too is unabashedly convinced about the superiority of its own religion and history is evidence of who got thrown down under the bus. (remember the name Hindu-Kush ?) Same with Xtianity.

Its prophet too segregated Kafirs and Non Kafirs and Abeed and between Ashraf and Ajlaf. So what is your comment on islamic world view ?

What is that you said ? "even if altruistic and well-intentioned, gave birth to thoughts and ideals which should not be celebrated in our society. " How ironic if you understand what I mean.

Finally Savarkar was a product of his time, the same way Nehru and Gandhi was a product of his time. Both flawed, and moulded by the colonial experience.

Yet the same people have no qualms about putting Nehru and Gandhi on a pedestal, but have a problem with Savarkar. THIS Hypocrisy is the defining characteristics of "secular" Indians.



He is the subject of your penis envy. The owner of the mug you find 'noble'. LOL.

Come out from your child hood trauma.
And answer to my question without any cowardice .
Who said you that all Brahmins are beautiful ?

 

[sankranti]

Come out from your child hood trauma.
And answer to my question without any cowardice .
Who said you that all Brahmins are beautiful ?

Ok. Let me pretend to be you and do the purvapaksha.

Have you stopped touching yourself in public and beating your wife ?

 

[SrNair]

Ok. Let me pretend to be you and do the purvapaksha.

Have you stopped touching yourself in public and beating your wife ?

Stay on point that you have suggested .
Who said you that all Brahmins are beautiful ?

 

[sankranti]

Stay on point that you have suggested .
Who said you that all Brahmins are beautiful ?

Don't be a coward and answer my question.

Have you stopped touching yourself in public and beating your wife ?

 

[SrNair]

Don't be a coward and answer my question.

Have you stopped touching yourself in public and beating your wife ?

Ask this question to yourself .

Now who the hell told you that all Brahmins are beautiful ?(this statement was yours).
Not mine

 

[Jackdaws]

And yet you have no qualms about putting the quran on a pedestal, do you ? or Nehru or gandhi for that matter.

You only have a problem with putting Savarkar on a pedestal after he sacrificed his entire life for the cause of all Indians.

No. Except for Gandhi - I wouldn't put anyone on a pedestal. Nehru was a good man but naive but he certainly isn't the villain that a combination of his successors' attitude and the masala filled gossip of the right make him out to be. He was a true Democrat and just like I will always criticize him for his China policy, I will also praise him for instilling democracy in India.

 

[sankranti]

No. Except for Gandhi - I wouldn't put anyone on a pedestal. Nehru was a good man but naive but he certainly isn't the villain that a combination of his successors' attitude and the masala filled gossip of the right make him out to be. He was a true Democrat and just like I will always criticize him for his China policy, I will also praise him for instilling democracy in India.

Ok, so let me measure Gandhi by your own parameters.

1. You claimed Savarkar wanted to segregate Muslims in the same way as African-Americans were in the US.

Yet it was Gandhi who segregated Muslims by agreeing to the partition of India. So by this very parameter, Savarkar and Gandhi were in the same page. Only Savarkar had a more principled stand and he stuck to his principles while Gandhi claimed to have principles, but he certainly had no problems with compromising on those principles for "national interest".

2. Next is Gandhi's claim to his "moral authority".
a.) Funny word for a man who admitted to sleeping naked with his own abused grand niece. (AFTER his wife's death)
b.) A man who denied his dying wife penicilline, but allowed the doctores to use penicillin to save his own life.
c.) A man who had no qualms asking Indians to pick up arms against the Germans, but had qualms asking them to pick up arms against the British.
d.) A man who did not do a day of honest labour after he returned by South Africa. He lived on monthly handouts by Birla, who ones famously said, "it cost the nation a fortune to keep Gandhi living in poverty" (mistakenly attributed to Sarojini naidu who merely repeated it)

Compare this to Savarkar who asked Indians to take up arms against the British, who was faithful to wife till the end, lived off his own resources, and was consistent in his approach to the british.


3. Next is the claim of Gandhi's popularity.

This was true, but it was also a creation of the British. Gandhi was 'popular" because he was allowed to publish since he supported British home rule. The british gave lighter sentence to him and his "Jail" was a serious of comfortable cells. Only thing that changed were degrees of comfort. Those were the benefits of being a collaborator, like Gilani or Yasin Malik in kashmir.

Nationalists like Subash chandra Bose and Savarkar were forced into exile and made to leave India so that they could never become popular enough to incite a revolution. Savarkar was never a british collaborator.

In absence of such powerful men of flammable ideas, the vacuum was filled by pusillanimous men like Gandhi. This was exactly what the british wanted. You think Gandhi would have become "mahatma" without active british support ?

Gandhi spent 15 years in jail, in relative comfort. Savarkar spent 11 years in "Kala Pani" being tortured every day of his life.


By what parameter is Gandhi superior to Savarkar and deserve a pedestal ?

Ask this question to yourself .

Now who the hell told you that all Brahmins are beautiful ?(this statement was yours).
Not mine

This is the part where I give you a long rope hang yourself.

QUOTE me the part where I made such a claim. Must be easy enough for you.

 

[Jackdaws]

Ok, so let me measure Gandhi by your own parameters.

1. You claimed Savarkar wanted to segregate Muslims in the same way as African-Americans were in the US.

Yet it was Gandhi who segregated Muslims by agreeing to the partition of India. So by this very parameter, Savarkar and Gandhi were in the same page. Only Savarkar had a more principled stand and he stuck to his principles while Gandhi claimed to have principles, but he certainly had no problems with compromising on those principles for "national interest".

2. Next is Gandhi's claim to his "moral authority".
a.) Funny word for a man who admitted to sleeping naked with his own abused grand niece. (AFTER his wife's death)
b.) A man who denied his dying wife penicilline, but allowed the doctores to use penicillin to save his own life.
c.) A man who had no qualms asking Indians to pick up arms against the Germans, but had qualms asking them to pick up arms against the British.
d.) A man who did not do a day of honest labour after he returned by South Africa. He lived on monthly handouts by Birla, who ones famously said, "it cost the nation a fortune to keep Gandhi living in poverty" (mistakenly attributed to Sarojini naidu who merely repeated it)

Compare this to Savarkar who asked Indians to take up arms against the British, who was faithful to wife till the end, lived off his own resources, and was consistent in his approach to the british.


3. Next is the claim of Gandhi's popularity.

This was true, but it was also a creation of the British. Gandhi was 'popular" because he was allowed to publish since he supported British home rule. The british gave lighter sentence to him and his "Jail" was a serious of comfortable cells. Only thing that changed were degrees of comfort. Those were the benefits of being a collaborator, like Gilani or Yasin Malik in kashmir.

Nationalists like Subash chandra Bose and Savarkar were forced into exile and made to leave India so that they could never become popular enough to incite a revolution. Savarkar was never a british collaborator.

In absence of such powerful men of flammable ideas, the vacuum was filled by pusillanimous men like Gandhi. This was exactly what the british wanted. You think Gandhi would have become "mahatma" without active british support ?

Gandhi spent 15 years in jail, in relative comfort. Savarkar spent 11 years in "Kala Pani" being tortured every day of his life.


By what parameter is Gandhi superior to Savarkar and deserve a pedestal ?



This is the part where I give you a long rope hang yourself.

QUOTE me the part where I made such a claim. Must be easy enough for you.

1. First all segregation and partition are completely different things. UK is leaving the EU - that is Partition - not segregation of citizens because of their beliefs. Partition of India was a political demand by a certain section of the Indian population. From what I understand Gandhi was against it till the end.

2. Am sure he had his vices - and sure he was hypocrite for denying penicillin to his wife while administering it himself.

3. Bose was not forced into exile - he escaped from house arrest where he was clearly comfortable. Bose was just as popular as Gandhi, if not more especially among the younger generation. The only leader with the same kind of popularity was Bhagat Singh at his zenith. Savarkar was no where close in terms of popularity on a national scale. I have not read of any physical torture that Savarkar had to endure in Cellular Jail - do enlighten me with sources.