Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
I don't hold you accountable, this is PDF, i've yet to meet a fellow like you here
It is not very usual that I find someone can match me and even correct me on questions of history, and this was a most unusual experience.
Having said that, I must tell you that some of the Bangladeshis are immensely well read about our local history (I am of Bangladeshi descent myself), and so are people such as a couple of youngsters from so-called Azad Kashmir, who came up with a wealth of information about the happenings in Jammu province at the time of partition, not to mention @WAJsal who comes, wretched lucky worm, from the most beautiful part of the sub-continent, and knew a great deal about, again, the events around the time of partition. I am writing a book on an historical subject, and both the accounts will feature prominently in it.
There are some Indians who believe that we would have done very well if Subhash Bose had been leading the country instead of Nehru when we became independent. Bose's programme was so close to that of Ataturk, who, of course, was very well known and respected and admired by that time, that it sometimes raises suspicion among some of us who were not schooled properly to show reverence to our elders and betters that he might have, erm, been 'inspired' more than we suspect by Ataturk. He wanted a period of military dictatorship and enforced modernisation before handing the rule back to democrats and parties. Who knows what might have happened? We might have had a south Asian Turkey.
I mention this not because I admire Bose or think that this might have been good for us, for that is speculation, and worthless, but just to tell you that there are many pro-Modi, pro-Hindutva types who unconsciously are cheering on the principles and intentions of Ataturk, without realising that they are contradicting themselves in a huge way.