Sidhu stirs new controversy, prefers Pakistan over South India

[Gadkari]

Exactly ..such a big country yet an obsession with tiny Pakistan and kashmiri people

It's only an obsession for the CONgress party and that is why they are reduced to 44 seats (lowest in history).

 

[padamchen]

'The man who goes on a hunger strike has a soul': When Jinnah defended Bhagat Singh

When Jinnah tried to save Bhagat Singh | जिन्नाह ने भगत सिंह को बचाने कोशिस की थी
On the freedom fighter’s 85th death anniversary, an account of how the founder of Pakistan called his trial a 'farce'.
Shoaib DaniyalPublished Mar 23, 2017 11:02pm
Much has been written about the Mohandas Gandhi-Bhagat Singh dynamic. Many Leftists see Gandhi’s refusal to intervene on behalf of Bhagat Singh as a betrayal. Yashpal, a comrade-in-arms of Bhagat Singh, wrote: “Gandhi considered it moral to put government pressure on the people for prohibition but he considered it immoral to put people’s pressure on foreign government to commute the sentences of Bhagat Singh etc.”

Less is known, though, of the dynamic between Mahomed Ali Jinnah (as he spelt he name) and Bhagat Singh. Jinnah and Singh did not interact much, given that they moved in widely differing political circles. Jinnah in 1931 was a politician who had missed the bus as far as Congress-style mass politics would be concerned. He was still at the high table of Indian politics, but largely as a technocratic liberal, much in the mould of his close friend and colleague Tej Bahadur Sapru. Like the other Indian liberals at the time, Jinnah strongly believed in constitutionalism, reposing faith in the institutions of Empire such as legislatures, courts and even the British Parliament to deliver progress to India. Marxist-Leninist Bhagat Singh was, of course, the polar opposite, believing that violent armed struggle was a legitimate way to overthrow the Raj.

The Assembly debate
Nevertheless, for a brief moment, their world’s intersected as Bhagat Singh was in jail for throwing bombs in the Central Legislative Assembly in New Delhi in 1929. Singh’s punishing hunger fasts though were making in very difficult to proceed with a normal trial. In response, the British administration, which was hell-bent on judicially murdering Singh by then, proceeded to get a bill through the Central Legislative Assembly that allowed the court to proceed with the case even in the absence of the accused if he “has voluntarily rendered himself incapable of remaining before the court”. This was unprecedented since a trial – by law and common sense – always required the accused to be present and defend himself.

In September 1929, Jinnah representing Bombay city in the Assembly, spoke powerfully, opposing this bill. Calling the trial a “farce” and a “travesty of justice”, he said that if the trial continued in the absence of the accused he “stands already condemned”. He also pointed out that Singh was a political prisoner and how the government was making a mistake by treating him a common criminal.

“Well, you know perfectly well that these men are determined to die. It is not a joke. I ask the honourable law member to realise that it is not everybody who can go on starving himself to death. Try it for a little while and you will see…. The man who goes on hunger strike has a soul. He is moved by that soul and he believes in the justice of his cause; he is not an ordinary criminal who is guilty of cold-blooded, sordid, wicked crime.”

Unlikely allies
Even as he spoke, the Assembly’s closing time neared and Jinnah was asked to resume the next day. Madan Mohan Malaviya, a modern Hindutva icon and one-time Congress President, came to Jinnah’s support. “Sir, cannot we go on for another 15 minutes?” Malviya asked the speaker urgently, only to see his request be rejected. (Two years later, Malaviya would also file Singh’s final mercy petition with the Viceroy).

The next day, Jinnah, the highest-paid lawyer in India at the time, took the Raj to task on the legality of Singh’s trial:

“It seems to me, Sir, that the great and fundamental doctrine of British jurisprudence, which is incorporated and codified in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code has very wisely not made such an absurd provision in the criminal law of this country and I am not satisfied that there is a lacuna in our system of criminal law.”

The outrage over the show trial of Singh made the Assembly reject this bill. This rejection by a puppet Assembly didn’t really mean much in actual terms though. The British Indian government simply ignored the House and introduced the amendment as an ordinance.

Judicial murder
Bhagat Singh researcher AG Noorani described the legal farce that followed after this:

“Having lost in the Assembly, the governor-general promulgated an ordinance, which was not subject to approval by the Assembly and expired after six months. It set up a tribunal to try the case. The entire trial was vitiated by flaws. A member of the tribunal, Justice Syed Agha Haider, was removed from the tribunal because, unlike the two European judges, he questioned the witnesses closely and repeatedly dissociated himself in writing from their orders. The tribunal which pronounced death sentences on the accused was itself under a sentence of death. The judges lost their office after six months. The accused were largely unrepresented by counsel and there was no right of appeal. The high court bar association set up a committee to consider the validity of the ordinance. Its report on June 19, 1930, found it to be 'invalid'.”

Bhagat Singh was secretly hanged on March 23, 1931 in Lahore. In 2011, the Supreme Court of India, echoing Jinnah, said that Singh’s trial was “contrary to the fundamental doctrine of criminal jurisprudence” since there was no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves.

This article was originally published by Scroll.in and has been reproduced here with permission.

Don't know about Jinna, but that was Gandhi's shittiest nadir.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Gadkari]

precisely, thats why your initial logic is flawed

Both India and Pakistan were the same nation till 1947, so if the Sikhs prosper more in India (outside punjab) than in pakistan punjab it clearly proves that they are more comfortable outside pakistan punjab.

Sikhs flourish and prosper in South India than in North India
South Indians ( Sikhs) in foreign countries have prospered more than in South India

That is stupid, since Sikhs have flourished in punjab too, same as they have done in south India.

Don't know about Jinna, but that was Gandhi's shittiest nadir.

Cheers, Doc

More like, that was jinnah's finest hour.

 

[padamchen]

Both India and Pakistan were the same nation till 1947, so if the Sikhs prosper more in India (outside punjab) than in pakistan punjab it clearly proves that they are more comfortable outside pakistan punjab.



That is stupid, since Sikhs have flourished in punjab too, same as they have done in south India.



More like, that was jinnah's finest hour.

Don't care much one way or the other for either man.

Less for the latter of course.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Gadkari]

Don't care much one way or the other for either man.

Less for the latter of course.

Cheers, Doc

How the heroes have fallen. Only Sardar Patel stands tall. Such is the judgement of History.

 

[Foo_Fighter]

Indian and Pakistani Punjabis do share common language and culture. They get along fine abroad.

One thing I have observed on the internet that both Pak and Indian Punjabis are very racist. They will always mock other ethnic groups and their skin color. Like the Sikh jatts who brag about their caste, Punjabi Muslim jutts do the sme. No wonder bollywood which is basically a Punjabi film industry is most popular among Punjabis whether Muslim , Hindu or Sikh.

Sidhu is an opportunist politician. When he was with the BJP he was anti Pakistan and pro Hindutva. You can google his statements. An opportunist politician cannot be trusted and will jump from one team to another in a heartbeat.

You can call me biased because I can't stand Punjabis and Bhaiyyas. But this is what I think. Please don't call me a "Sir', I am no knight.

@SorryNotSorry

And I am telling you that if you go beyond the superficial pop culture, a Indian punjab has VERY LITTLE in common with a pakistani punjabi muslim. He will find more in common with a South Indian on any day of the month.

The "culture" you speaking about is a very superficial thing. The True Deep culture that includes the history, values, food, literature, beliefs, tradition and practices are as different as they can be. Such deep culture has more in common with south India than pakistan punjab.

 

[Foo_Fighter]

And I am telling you that if you go beyond the superficial pop culture, a Indian punjab has VERY LITTLE in common with a pakistani punjabi muslim. He will find more in common with a South Indian on any day of the month.

The "culture" you speaking about is a very superficial thing. The True Deep culture that includes the history, values, food, literature, beliefs, tradition and practices are as different as they can be. Such deep culture has more in common with south India than pakistan punjab.

 

[Great Brahmin]

Nothing wrong with his statement.

He's a panjabis so he feels closer to other panjabis.

I am a brahmin and I feel more closer to other North Indian,nepali brahmins due to shared brahminical language, culture, Religion, teachings, scripts, way of life and more importantly blood, lineage and ethinicity.

My brahmin friend is married to a nepali Brahmin girl and despite living thousands of kms away both shares remarkable similar culture.

Just like past 5000 years we don't see us as just panjabi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali but as Brahmin first.

 

[Gadkari]

Nothing wrong with his statement.

He's a panjabis so he feels closer to other panjabis.

I am a brahmin and I feel more closer to other North Indian,nepali brahmins due to shared brahminical language, culture, Religion, teachings, scripts, way of life and more importantly blood, lineage and ethinicity.

My brahmin friend is married to a nepali Brahmin girl and despite living thousands of kms away both shares remarkable similar culture.

Just like past 5000 years we don't see us as just panjabi, Gujarati, Marathi, Bengali but as Brahmin first.

What is "shared brahminical language" ?

Can you say a few words in this mythical language ?

 

[Great Brahmin]

The reality is Dravid India might as well be on another continent. There is clear divide between Ganga and Dravid India. Sikhoos are actually a Indus people [thus have a convergence with Pakistan] and are going to be drowned in the swamp of Gangoo/Dravids as they only make a tiny 2% of the population.

Sikh, Brahmin, Parsee, Jain etc all are minority yet controls majority of India.
How's your point velid ?

So you are saying South Indians hate South Indians too? That is terrible.

I will learn South Indian and give all my love to them.

SI girls are lovely.

Got my first SI gf after moving just 15 days ago. Very smart and Educated.

 

[Gadkari]

SI girls are lovely.

Got my first SI gf after moving just 15 days ago. Very smart and Educated.

Did you speak to her in your special "brahminical language" to seduce her ? ............ totally believable.

Why is that all the muslims fantasize about Hindu girls ? even pretend to be fake brahmins ?

 

[manlion]

Both India and Pakistan were the same nation till 1947, so if the Sikhs prosper more in India (outside punjab) than in pakistan punjab it clearly proves that they are more comfortable outside pakistan punjab.

That is stupid, since Sikhs have flourished in punjab too, same as they have done in south India.

More like, that was jinnah's finest hour.

you said

Because Sikhs have RUN away from pakistani punjab and into India while the SIkhs in South India FLOURISH and PROSPER.

I debunked your nonsense , by pointing out that Sikhs prospered and flourish much better in foreign countries than in countries South of India.

Their pop size (an estimate) in these countries attest to the fact

Canada- 500,000
UK - 500,000
USA - 250,000
Australia - 100,000
Malaysia - 100,000

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-largest-sikh-populations.html

 

[halupridol]

The reality is Dravid India might as well be on another continent. There is clear divide between Ganga and Dravid India. Sikhoos are actually a Indus people [thus have a convergence with Pakistan] and are going to be drowned in the swamp of Gangoo/Dravids as they only make a tiny 2% of the population.

Wth r sikhoos?
N by ganga n dravids,,u mean bhayya n dravids,,right.
N whr is the pakistan part of the map?
Ps-duhh,,,bhayyas will have similarity with other bhayyas rather thn non bhayyas,,SO why r ppl outraged?

 

[Gadkari]

you said
I debunked your nonsense , by pointing out that Sikhs prospered and flourish much better in foreign countries than in countries South of India.

Their pop size (an estimate) in these countries attest to the fact

Canada- 500,000
UK - 500,000
USA - 250,000
Australia - 100,000
Malaysia - 100,000

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-largest-sikh-populations.html

Yeah, I am not interested in going around in circles. I have explain the fallacy in your claims and that should be enough.

Repeating it again and again is not going to make you sound any smarter nor make your claims any more truer.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Wth r sikhoos?

Sikhs of Punjab which actually falls within the Indus region.

• Ganga - all or most of Northern India formed around the holy Ganga River
• Dravid- all or most of the peninsula dominated by those Dravidians
• Aboriginial-Asiatics like Gond people
• Tibeto-Burmans of the north east and west.

And I did not look at Pakistan because the subject was the major fractures India has.