New book Tears apart the Image of Gandhi

[The_Showstopper]

Opposing Gandhi does not automatically translate it to siding with Godse...The world does not operate in such a binary mode dear friend..

OK so tell what is it that you think are the wrong doings of Gandhiji

Yes he did

Good to know your views Mr False flagger...

 

[Kaniska]

OK so tell what is it that you think are the wrong doings of Gandhiji

Gandhi should have made India a Non Muslim nation....Reason is simple, when a nation is created for Muslims, he should have made sure, all Muslims are respectfully settled in Pakistan so that both nations could have lived happily...If he was thinking that all Muslims are not interested to go Pakistan, then he should not have partitioned India..You can not always be on the both sides of the boat..

Again, this does not mean, I am not proud of Indian who are Muslims, but that does not discount the fact, this is a tactical mistake that Gandhi has done ,for which we are paying the price.

Yes he did

No he did not do a good thing...Difference in opinion should not lead to killing each other...

 

[Parashu]

I have been thru Pakistani Education system and I know exactly how "partial" the education system is about history in Pakistan. There is 0% coverage of leaders during the partition and focus is primarily on the Muslim League leadership.

And I am not surprised at the lack of respect for general leadership on Indian side even when it is a fact that both the Muslim & Indian leadership participated on joint movements to put pressure on British government for liberation.

In our education system , there is barely any coverage on correspondence between leaders, and the view points and general geo political status of world during first world war an second world war.

Our education , teaches us

Date of birth for Qauid-e-Azam, and then that 1 poetic stanza used in speeches
Date of birth for Illama Iqbal

Fast forward creation of Muslim League

Fast forward 1943

Fast forward 1947

Bam Pakistan was formed however the education / history does not covers various times leadership sat together on Joint issues and successfully worked on various movements and joint focus groups.

All the complex issues are generally skipped in chapters of education system

However the reality was that the leadership of that time , worked with various other leaders of the time which showed great amount of mutual respect as seen in 1944 talks


After Gandhi's assassination
"The loss to the Dominion of India is irreparable, and it will be very difficult to fill the vacuum created by the passing away of such a great man at this moment"
- Jinnah speaking after Gandhi's assassination

So if Quid-e Azam, considered Mr Gandhi a respectful leader and politician which shows in his images and statements , shows you how far is the understanding of present day generation on realities of the past becasue we don't understand how closely the leaders of the past worked with each other

main + point is both were Gujaratis from same region of Gujarat saurasstra.

we people of saurastra still respect MR.Jinnah as a great leader, noble and wise man and politician

 

[Tiger Genie]

Gandhiji did start with a number of qualities that today we would call wrong. He was a bar-at-law from London when he went to South Africa, with all the attendant expectations. He like most Indians at that time felt quite superior to blacks and even most browns. It is not at at all surprising that he held views in his early and middle years that mirrored more of the english saheb than the mahathma he later became.

Sought African experience changed him. The rude awakening that regardless of how much he or others were qualified, smart, whites will be white and everyone else will be non-white in their eyes. That was the beginning of Gandhiji's change.

A lot of people went through thsi experience. Very few such as Gandhiji turned that into the kiln from which were borne pure hearts - hearts that stopped hating. When he conquered hatred in his own mind, he became mahathma. That is why he couyld not hate even the muslims who committed atrocities in naokali.

It was India's gain.

 

[The_Showstopper]

So I need to take certificate from you to prove myself. Go through my posts and you will realize I am an Indian and not a congressi stooge like you. My IQ is far far greater than your Rahul Gandhi.

OK

Gandhi should have made India a Non Muslim nation....Reason is simple, when a nation is created for Muslims, he should have made sure, all Muslims are respectfully settled in Pakistan so that both nations could have lived happily...If he was thinking that all Muslims are not interested to go Pakistan, then he should not have partitioned India..You can not always be on the both sides of the boat..

India is a non-muslim and non-Hindu nation, it is a secular democratic republic. The nation called Pakistan was created for people who wanted it and not for entire Indian muslims. There were many Indian muslims who opposed the idea of Pakistan. It wasn't in his hands to partition or not. The blood bath led to what we have presently. And what do you mean by both sides of the boat?

Again, this does not mean, I am not proud of Indian who are Muslims, but that does not discount the fact, this is a tactical mistake that Gandhi has done ,for which we are paying the price.

Oh really what price are you paying dear? And you think once you get rid(exterminate) of muslims, you will be a happy home. First they(You know who I speak of) will go for Christians then Sikhs then other minorities then rationalists then atheists and then there will caste wars(All of which is anyways happening albeit in smaller numbers) and please be at home aka Hindu Pakistan once you are done with all Non-Hindus.

 

[Tiger Genie]

Gandhi should have made India a Non Muslim nation....Reason is simple, when a nation is created for Muslims, he should have made sure, all Muslims are respectfully settled in Pakistan so that both nations could have lived happily...If he was thinking that all Muslims are not interested to go Pakistan, then he should not have partitioned India..You can not always be on the both sides of the boat..

Again, this does not mean, I am not proud of Indian who are Muslims, but that does not discount the fact, this is a tactical mistake that Gandhi has done ,for which we are paying the price.

That is a lot of assumptions you are making.

1) How would you have divided the landmass with muslims in large numbers (majority) in large islands such as Hyderabad, parts of Kerala, parts of UP etc? The two countries would look like swiss cheese thsu guaranteeing eternal wars. Unless you want to physically move all muslims / hindus into contiguous landmasses - which would mean 45% of people will have to move GREAT distances.

2) you are WRONG in another major respect: Pakistan was made in the name of muslims but INDIA was not made in the name of ANY religion.If you had forced both to be religion based, the sizable minorities would have been decimated - Christians, Parsis, Bhuddhits, Jains - why would they accept an India if it was made for Hindus? Forcing that would have made India look like current day Pakistan! do you really want two Pakistans (in terms of religious fanaticism & bigotry?)

3) Gandhiji's powers had somewhat diminished by then anyway. He did not want any partition but could not prevail

 

[Kaniska]

OK


India is a non-muslim and non-Hindu nation, it is a secular democratic republic. The nation called Pakistan was created for people who wanted it and not for entire Indian muslims. There were many Indian muslims who opposed the idea of Pakistan. It wasn't in his hands to partition or not. The blood bath led to what we have presently. And what do you mean by both sides of the boat?


Oh really what price are you paying dear? And you think once you get rid(exterminate) of muslims, you will be a happy home. First they(You know who I speak of) will go for Christians then Sikhs then other minorities then rationalists then atheists and then there will caste wars(All of which is anyways happening albeit in smaller numbers) and please be at home aka Hindu Pakistan once you are done with all Non-Hindus.

I agree and respect most of your opinion..Couple of things i disagree with...But again, let us agree to disagree with some of the things..

That is a lot of assumptions you are making.

1) How would you have divided the landmass with muslims in large numbers (majority) in large islands such as Hyderabad, parts of Kerala, parts of UP etc? The two countries would look like swiss cheese thsu guaranteeing eternal wars. Unless you want to physically move all muslims / hindus into contiguous landmasses - which would mean 45% of people will have to move GREAT distances.

2) you are WRONG in another major respect: Pakistan was made in the name of muslims but INDIA was not made in the name of ANY religion.If you had forced both to be religion based, the sizable minorities would have been decimated - Christians, Parsis, Bhuddhits, Jains - why would they accept an India if it was made for Hindus? Forcing that would have made India look like current day Pakistan! do you really want two Pakistans (in terms of religious fanaticism & bigotry?)

3) Gandhiji's powers had somewhat diminished by then anyway. He did not want any partition but could not prevail

I agree, i am making lot of assumptions...So to many other people make assumptions in assuming that other minorities would have been decimated....Again, this topic is based on many assumptions...It is not a factual topic...So have put aside some assumption and so do you...But i still stic to my thought, that if Pakistan was created for Muslims, India could have been made a Non Muslim nation....It is not necessary that it has to be a Hindu nation...You have your own judgement and i respect it too...

 

[Tiger Genie]

I agree and respect most of your opinion..Couple of things i disagree with...But again, let us agree to disagree with some of the things..



I agree, i am making lot of assumptions...So to many other people make assumptions in assuming that other minorities would have been decimated....Again, this topic is based on many assumptions...It is not a factual topic...So have put aside some assumption and so do you...But i still stic to my thought, that if Pakistan was created for Muslims, India could have been made a Non Muslim nation....It is not necessary that it has to be a Hindu nation...You have your own judgement and i respect it too...

If you agree India is not merely for Hindus then why should it be a non-muslim nation? India's troubles are due to Pakistan, not Indian muslims

 

[Kaniska]

If you agree India is not merely for Hindus then why should it be a non-muslim nation? India's troubles are due to Pakistan, not Indian muslims

Dear friend...I do not want to stirr up the unnecessary debate here.I know it will not lead to anywhere.....At least i should thank you that you understand my intent in a proper way that my intent is to not see a Hindu nation rather something else....