The Legacy of Mao Zedong is Mass Murder

[tranquilium]

In my view, Nehru was a much better leader than Mao. Although your obsession with 1962 war is another thing.

The thing is, by the time of Mao's death. China is left with a solid industry base to face international competitor in a global economy, a strong enough army to never worry about being invaded, enough educated people and infrastructure to support modern society and stable country that devote its entire effort into making people's lives better. Something that Nehru or even all the India PMs after him combined wasn't able to do.

Mao cut off a lot of toes to get China to what it is today. It is perfectly understandable that lots of people, especially foreigners hate him with a passion.

 

[Joeblow]

I myself have trouble judging Mao's life, but I do believe if India had a Mao, the country would be better,at least stronger than it is now.

I have to disagree with you there. I don't Mao would have helped at all. Deng Xiou Ping would have made a difference. But Mao would have lead Indian Union to a complete collapse. How do the Chinese feel about Mao? Do they attribute their success today to him or to Deng?

 

[powastick]

I have to disagree with you there. I don't Mao would have helped at all. Deng Xiou Ping would have made a difference. But Mao would have lead Indian Union to a complete collapse. How do the Chinese feel about Mao? Do they attribute their success today to him or to Deng?

I do agree, Mao would be overthrown. China and India is different. We view Mao positively, my problem with Mao is not the great leap forward(famine) but the cultural revolution. Those irreplaceable cultural relics, please no. Economically both did, recovering from war and surviving through western sanction.

 

[INDIC]

I do agree, Mao would be overthrown. China and India is different. We view Mao positively, my problem with Mao is not the great leap forward(famine) but the cultural revolution. Those irreplaceable cultural relics, please no. Economically both did, recovering from war and surviving through western sanction.

Communism won't work in India, people here are sensitive on many diverse issues with diverse opinions and only Parliamentary system with federal system fit in that. I will say even the Presidential system won't fit in Indian character.

 

[Joeblow]

So they were afraid of being considered unpopular after any such federation.

It wasn't so much about popularity. Other than Gandhi, no one really thought it would work. Sardar Patel, who is the real architect of the Indian republic wanted nothing to do with a loose federation because he was worried that every little thing would become a Hindu-Muslim thing and the federation would eventually disintegrate. Sardar Patel, as has been proved time and again, was right and Indians are much better without Pakistan and Bangladesh.

 

[INDIC]

It wasn't so much about popularity. Other than Gandhi, no one really thought it would work. Sardar Patel, who is the real architect of the Indian republic wanted nothing to do with a loose federation because he was worried that every little thing would become a Hindu-Muslim thing and the federation would eventually disintegrate. Sardar Patel, as has been proved time and again, was right and Indians are much better without Pakistan and Bangladesh.

ML had different opinion on the status of princely states and they were against Princely states merging in India as many of them were ruled by Muslim nawabs and they would have proved to be a nuisance in Constituent Assembly and we would never had got a constitution if they had sit with Congress in the Constituent Assembly, infact Pakistan's own constituent Assembly ended up as failure. Moreover, If India wasn't partitioned it would have been a nightmare for congress to bring land reforms as most of the support of Muslim League in Punjab-Sindh came from Landlords of Punjab and Sindh and they wouldn't let it happen. India was better without Pakistan and Bangladesh. @Hiptullha

 

[Desertfalcon]

Communism won't work in India,

Does it anywhere? China was not much different than backward, starving, tyrannical, North Korea until Deng Xiaoping. What works in China now, what has made China what it is today, is that which is not communist. That which is, (her antiquated political system.), is all that is holding China back from becomeing the world's pre-eminent superpower.

 

[Joeblow]

ML had different opinion on the status of princely states and they were against Princely states merging in India as many of them were ruled by Muslim nawabs and they would have proved to be a nuisance in Constituent Assembly and we would never had got a constitution if they had sit with Congress in the Constituent Assembly, infact Pakistan's own constituent Assembly ended up as failure. Moreover, If India wasn't partitioned it would have been a nightmare for congress to bring land reforms as most of the support of Muslim League in Punjab-Sindh came from Landlords of Punjab and Sindh and they wouldn't let it happen. India was better without Pakistan and Bangladesh. @Hiptullha

Imagine if india and Pakistan weren't partitioned!! OBL would have killed in India, drone attacks would happening in India. Khalid sheikh Mohammad, Zaid Hamid and Hamid Gul would be Indians. Worse, Indians would have to share their country with PDF members like Icewolf, Razpak, Idune, Adjani and of course, Horus the administrator. That's why I rank Jinnah higher than Nehru on the list of the greatest leaders India has ever produced. He basically saved India from centuries of embarrassment.

 

[Nan Yang]

In my view, Nehru was a much better leader than Mao. Although your obsession with 1962 war is another thing.

But seems that the sprit of Mao is more alive.

 

[INDIC]

Does it anywhere? China was not much different than backward, starving, tyrannical, North Korea until Deng Xiaoping. What works in China now, what has made China what it is today, is that which is not communist. That which is, (her antiquated political system.), is all that is holding China back from becomeing the world's pre-eminent superpower.

But do you really think China is ready to withstand the aftershocks of moving from Communism with tight state control to Democracy with free speech, because then Chinese and their political parties won't understand how to use their newly achieved free speech and will start complaining/agitating on pity issues and everything will end up into a mess. Democracy is not made for China because it will only succeed in countries which has a long tradition of understanding it since the foundation year of their Republics, its too late for China to move to democracy.

But seems that the sprit of Mao is more alive.
View attachment 112232

View attachment 112233

First picture is of Pushpakumar Dahal Prachanda, the maoist leader of Nepal and I can't understand what's your point by posting the second picture. Communism brought anarchy in China during Mao's rule, Nehru has much better legacy as a prime Minister of India during 1947-1964 where he brought more stability to India internally.

Imagine if india and Pakistan weren't partitioned!! OBL would have killed in India, drone attacks would happening in India. Khalid sheikh Mohammad, Zaid Hamid and Hamid Gul would be Indians. Worse, Indians would have to share their country with PDF members like Icewolf, Razpak, Idune, Adjani and of course, Horus the administrator. That's why I rank Jinnah higher than Nehru on the list of the greatest leaders India has ever produced. He basically saved India from centuries of embarrassment.

We could live in peace without Pakistan and Bangladesh, India having no border with Afghanistan, no interfere either of America or USSR.

 

[Okemos]

I do agree, Mao would be overthrown. China and India is different. We view Mao positively, my problem with Mao is not the great leap forward(famine) but the cultural revolution. Those irreplaceable cultural relics, please no. Economically both did, recovering from war and surviving through western sanction.

I tend to agree with you here.

I would of course not equate failed economic policies with murder and I also think some success especially mass education and industrial foundations can be attributed to his policies, but I definitely would never forgive Mao for what he did to China's intellectuals and our long tradition of esteem for knowledge ever since dawn of time. This great tradition of esteem of knowledge has almost gone in today's China. People no longer respect honest intellectual, not respect cultures. It's all about pragmatism, about so called "progress," so called "economic success."

You will certainly see the profound and devastating impact cultural revolution still has on today's China. Look at most mainland Chinese's attitudes towards Confucianism and, I bet, most Chinese people here in this forum would even despise Confucianism as "Quan Ru," as some "feudalistic tools to oppress the mass" (lol), even though China didn't even have "feudalism," unlike Europe, since Han Dynasty. Enough said. Even though the leaders today try to revive Confucianism to save the eroding social morals, I am afraid China can no longer become like classic China where Confucius morals are esteemed. Sad but true.

 

[Desertfalcon]

But do you really think China is ready to withstand the aftershocks of moving from Communism with tight state control to Democracy with free speech, because then Chinese and their political parties won't understand how to use their newly achieved free speech and will start complaining/agitating on pity issues and everything will end up into a mess. Democracy is not made for China because it will only succeed in countries which has a long tradition of understanding it since the foundation year of their Republics, its too late for China to move to democracy.

Oh, I disagree. We have a very good model for the Chinese where that has and is happening...

History of Taiwan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[INDIC]

Oh, I disagree. We have a very good model for the Chinese where that has and is happening...

History of Taiwan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taiwan is a small island with some 23 million people, we are talking of about 1.3 Billion inhabitants on the mainland, who have no idea how democracy works after living for 7 decades under communism.

 

[Joeblow]

I fail to see what you're trying to do here. I'll say it again, I just responded to your claim Jinnah was responsible for partition, which he was not.

Oh no, he definitely was responsible for the partition (not complaining though) The seeds of partition were sown a long time ago and nurtured through the constant rhetoric of Hindus and Muslims being different and muslims being enslaved by the Hindu majority in independent India. The last minute plan for a loose federation was just silly idea. I don't want to pretend to know what was ML's thought process there. Maybe they thought it would actually work or maybe it was a ploy to walk off into the sunset with more land a few years down line or maybe they thought they could establish muslim rule over the entire subcontinent with the help of the their nizams and nawabs after a while or maybe they just agreed to it knowing congress wouldn't agree to it and they could blame them for the partition of India. Anyway, the damage was already done so there was no point in trying to hold on to an undivided India.

 

[bolo]

View attachment 111336 “The main point about Mao is that for long after he knew there was a famine, he refused to introduce policies that would eliminate the crisis,” Thurston.

the great famine was caused by hindoos. Nice pic of coolies from late 19th century.