What's new

Wish Sardar Patel had been first PM of India: Narendra Modi

What a morn you are.

1) If RSS was involved in Gandhiji's Murder, Can Sardar lift the ban on simply promise of RSS not to involved in political affairs ignoring killing of Gandhi?
2) Each citizen and organization has a right to involve in political affairs. Constitution gives that right. Do you want to prove that Sardar was a dictator who wanted to black mail some organization not to take part in political activity for lifting the ban? We have given right to Muslim League and communists also to take part in political activity.

Congressee have no right to claim legacy of Sardar. Congress has always try to Undermine the importance of Sardar. They have never took any care of Sardar, Gandhi (Real Gandhi) or Shastri's family. Fake Gandhis have hijacked the congress. The fake gandhis even did not allow real gandhis grand son to fight an election from Porbandar by denying him the ticket from porbandar the place of Mahatma. Real Gandhi had an Idea what congresse goons are going to do to this country. That is why he recommended to dismantal this organization of thieves. We hope Modiji will fulfill the desire of Mahatma the real Gandhi.


It was not officialy involved where did i say it was ? Godse had links with it you need to read history not me

its not me saying RSS gave this undertaking only then ban was lifted by sardar patel


Criticizing Feku does not make me a congress man, i have every reason not to suppost feku just like you have your valid reasons to support him
 
Sardar Patel would have been a brilliant statesman. He was curt, apt and clear. One oft quoted point is that Patel hated RSS. He did not. He had doubts about it. As a no nonsense leader, his banning RSS was understandable. But he also wrote to Shyama Prasad Mookherjee stating that he found no evidence of complicity of RSS, so he was revoking the ban. But he had a reservation - RSS policies may have created an environment for it. At this time Nehru was out of India on a foreign tour. When he came back he was furious. Patel showed him the finger.
 
The last thing i wanna see is confrontation between China and India, we have a soft spot for Indians all the time. I hope you could understand.

Sensible Indians also want good relationship with China & her Citizens

Although I am sure relation ship are going to improve in the coming days

Love from a India
P.S not in a gay way
 
Throw some light on Feku fans too, you are so conveniently nonscoring facts of history too. Its now congress showing its on record documents of parliament that he lifted banned n RSS after it promised not to meddle in political affairs

Desperation in your reply is evident
In her article in The Hindu "The Forgotten Promise of 1949,”, Vidya Subrahmaniam asserts that Sardar Patel lifted the ban on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1949, because it had promised to be non-political, but it reneged on it in 2013. But publicly known facts recalled here contradict her assertion.



It all began with the arrest of the RSS chief, M.S. Golwalkar, after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. On February 4, 1948, the government banned the RSS alleging that, contrary to its professed ideals, the RSS members had carried on violent activities, collected illicit weapons and exhorted people to violence. Rejecting the allegations but respecting the law, Golwalkar suspended the work of the RSS. Six months later, he was released but interned in Nagpur. On August 11, he wrote to Pandit Nehru that despite the “hasty and unbalanced action” against the RSS by those in highest authority, he offered to cooperate with them as the times were critical.



Nehru, cleverly or properly, sent Golwalkar’s letter to Patel for response because just before Gandhiji’s assassination, speaking in Lucknow, Patel had warned “those in power in the Congress” against efforts “to crush” the patriotic RSS. Patel replied to Golwalkar recalling his positive views on the RSS and lauding the young RSS workers who served the Hindu society and protected women and children. But he also charged them with targeting “Mussalmans” in “burning revenge” to avenge “for the sufferings of the innocent” Hindus, and accused them of spreading “communal poison” that cost Gandhiji’s life. Still, Patel advised the RSS to “carry on” its “patriotic endeavour by joining and not opposing the Congress.” Surprisingly, this letter did not reach Golwalkar.



On September 24, Golwalkar again wrote to Patel — also Nehru — demanding that the allegations and the ban be withdrawn because countrywide searches and investigation had yielded no proof against the RSS. Patel responded to him on September 26 through R.S. Shukla (Premier, Central Provinces and Berar) enclosing his earlier letter which did not reach Golwalkar. Patel asserted that since all provinces unanimously wanted the ban to continue, “there must surely be some basis for it.” He advised the RSS to function according to “the rules of the Congress.” That there “must be some basis for it” perhaps admitted the lack of any basis.



On September 27, a PMO official wrote to Golwalkar that to lift or keep the ban was the Home Ministry’s prerogative, but reiterated that governments had a “great deal of evidence” and the U.P. government had already sent a “note” on ‘the evidence’ to Golwalkar. On November 3 an angry Golwalkar denied having received any “note” and challenged the government to disclose the “great deal of evidence” and prosecute the RSS. He also wrote to Patel trashing the allegations. On Patel’s suggestion that the RSS join the Congress, Golwalkar replied that the Congress in the political field and the RSS in the cultural domain could compliment and converge. And despite Golwalkar’s open challenge, no evidence was forthcoming.



Nehru’s letter to Golwalkar (November 10) again asserted that the government had a “mass of information against the RSS.” Accusing Nehru of a closed mind, Golwalkar responded that to talk of “mass of evidence” without disclosing it amounted to convicting a person without evidence — like in the “Dark Ages.” His strong words obviously put off the government. On November 13, the Home Secretary refused to lift the ban and asked Golwalkar to go back to Nagpur. Golwalkar exploded and replied that such “arbitrary acts fit with autocratic rule” in “barbaric ages,” not “a civilised state.” Either prove or drop the charges, he challenged Patel. Refusing to leave Delhi, he asked the RSS workers to restart the suspended Shakas. Forthwith Golwalkar was arrested. The RSS began a satyagraha on December 9 demanding “prove the charges, lift the ban and release Guruji [Golwalkar]”. In one month, some 80,000 RSS workers were arrested. Yet no proof of wrongdoing by the RSS was made public.



It was then that T.R. Venkatrama Shastri, former Advocate General of Madras and head of the Servants of India Society, intervened. He wrote an anguished letter in The Hindu, met Sardar Patel and urged him to lift the ban. In the fresh negotiations came the new argument that since it did not have a written constitution, the RSS functioned secretly — a shift from either ‘join the Congress’ or ‘adopt the Congress rules’. Shastri drafted and submitted the RSS constitution. But the talks failed.



On July 9, 1949 the government refused to lift the ban citing “fundamental differences.” Shastri then decided to publicise the details of the substantive issues discussed — one, on the authority of the RSS chief to nominate his successor and the other, on participation of minors in its activities. On the RSS and politics, Shastri said that there was a “comment that though they profess to be a non-political body, they may turn into one overnight,” to which Shastri responded, “And so they may. If they did it would be no crime.” That was all. Shastri added that with the suspicion of the RSS’ complicity in Gandhiji’s assassination “recognized to be without any real foundation” and the charges against the RSS in some cases having been found unsustainable, continuing the ban was untenable. Surprisingly the very day Shastri’s statement was sent to The Hindu (which published it on July 14), namely on July 11 itself, the government lifted the ban. It must have been advised that the ban without evidence would be unconstitutional under the Constitution of India.



The ban was lifted unconditionally. Here is the proof. In a written statement to the Bombay Legislative Assembly on September 14, 1949 (Proceedings p2126) the Home Minister Morarji Desai admitted that the ban on RSS was no longer considered necessary; it was lifted unconditionally; and the RSS gave no undertaking. If no undertaking was indeed given in 1949, where is the question of reneging on it in 2013?



(S. Gurumurthy is a commentator on political and economic affairs.)
 
Sardar Patel would have been a brilliant statesman. He was curt, apt and clear. One oft quoted point is that Patel hated RSS. He did not. He had doubts about it. As a no nonsense leader, his banning RSS was understandable. But he also wrote to Shyama Prasad Mookherjee stating that he found no evidence of complicity of RSS, so he was revoking the ban. But he had a reservation - RSS policies may have created an environment for it. At this time Nehru was out of India on a foreign tour. When he came back he was furious. Patel showed him the finger.


I guise it would be middle finger.
 
Can i understand that the well educated Indian middle class people looking for change that support Modi at the most?

As the people climb up the economic ladder , they show a preference towards BJP .
 
In her article in The Hindu "The Forgotten Promise of 1949,”, Vidya Subrahmaniam asserts that Sardar Patel lifted the ban on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1949, because it had promised to be non-political, but it reneged on it in 2013. But publicly known facts recalled here contradict her assertion.



It all began with the arrest of the RSS chief, M.S. Golwalkar, after Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination. On February 4, 1948, the government banned the RSS alleging that, contrary to its professed ideals, the RSS members had carried on violent activities, collected illicit weapons and exhorted people to violence. Rejecting the allegations but respecting the law, Golwalkar suspended the work of the RSS. Six months later, he was released but interned in Nagpur. On August 11, he wrote to Pandit Nehru that despite the “hasty and unbalanced action” against the RSS by those in highest authority, he offered to cooperate with them as the times were critical.



Nehru, cleverly or properly, sent Golwalkar’s letter to Patel for response because just before Gandhiji’s assassination, speaking in Lucknow, Patel had warned “those in power in the Congress” against efforts “to crush” the patriotic RSS. Patel replied to Golwalkar recalling his positive views on the RSS and lauding the young RSS workers who served the Hindu society and protected women and children. But he also charged them with targeting “Mussalmans” in “burning revenge” to avenge “for the sufferings of the innocent” Hindus, and accused them of spreading “communal poison” that cost Gandhiji’s life. Still, Patel advised the RSS to “carry on” its “patriotic endeavour by joining and not opposing the Congress.” Surprisingly, this letter did not reach Golwalkar.



On September 24, Golwalkar again wrote to Patel — also Nehru — demanding that the allegations and the ban be withdrawn because countrywide searches and investigation had yielded no proof against the RSS. Patel responded to him on September 26 through R.S. Shukla (Premier, Central Provinces and Berar) enclosing his earlier letter which did not reach Golwalkar. Patel asserted that since all provinces unanimously wanted the ban to continue, “there must surely be some basis for it.” He advised the RSS to function according to “the rules of the Congress.” That there “must be some basis for it” perhaps admitted the lack of any basis.



On September 27, a PMO official wrote to Golwalkar that to lift or keep the ban was the Home Ministry’s prerogative, but reiterated that governments had a “great deal of evidence” and the U.P. government had already sent a “note” on ‘the evidence’ to Golwalkar. On November 3 an angry Golwalkar denied having received any “note” and challenged the government to disclose the “great deal of evidence” and prosecute the RSS. He also wrote to Patel trashing the allegations. On Patel’s suggestion that the RSS join the Congress, Golwalkar replied that the Congress in the political field and the RSS in the cultural domain could compliment and converge. And despite Golwalkar’s open challenge, no evidence was forthcoming.



Nehru’s letter to Golwalkar (November 10) again asserted that the government had a “mass of information against the RSS.” Accusing Nehru of a closed mind, Golwalkar responded that to talk of “mass of evidence” without disclosing it amounted to convicting a person without evidence — like in the “Dark Ages.” His strong words obviously put off the government. On November 13, the Home Secretary refused to lift the ban and asked Golwalkar to go back to Nagpur. Golwalkar exploded and replied that such “arbitrary acts fit with autocratic rule” in “barbaric ages,” not “a civilised state.” Either prove or drop the charges, he challenged Patel. Refusing to leave Delhi, he asked the RSS workers to restart the suspended Shakas. Forthwith Golwalkar was arrested. The RSS began a satyagraha on December 9 demanding “prove the charges, lift the ban and release Guruji [Golwalkar]”. In one month, some 80,000 RSS workers were arrested. Yet no proof of wrongdoing by the RSS was made public.



It was then that T.R. Venkatrama Shastri, former Advocate General of Madras and head of the Servants of India Society, intervened. He wrote an anguished letter in The Hindu, met Sardar Patel and urged him to lift the ban. In the fresh negotiations came the new argument that since it did not have a written constitution, the RSS functioned secretly — a shift from either ‘join the Congress’ or ‘adopt the Congress rules’. Shastri drafted and submitted the RSS constitution. But the talks failed.



On July 9, 1949 the government refused to lift the ban citing “fundamental differences.” Shastri then decided to publicise the details of the substantive issues discussed — one, on the authority of the RSS chief to nominate his successor and the other, on participation of minors in its activities. On the RSS and politics, Shastri said that there was a “comment that though they profess to be a non-political body, they may turn into one overnight,” to which Shastri responded, “And so they may. If they did it would be no crime.” That was all. Shastri added that with the suspicion of the RSS’ complicity in Gandhiji’s assassination “recognized to be without any real foundation” and the charges against the RSS in some cases having been found unsustainable, continuing the ban was untenable. Surprisingly the very day Shastri’s statement was sent to The Hindu (which published it on July 14), namely on July 11 itself, the government lifted the ban. It must have been advised that the ban without evidence would be unconstitutional under the Constitution of India.



The ban was lifted unconditionally. Here is the proof. In a written statement to the Bombay Legislative Assembly on September 14, 1949 (Proceedings p2126) the Home Minister Morarji Desai admitted that the ban on RSS was no longer considered necessary; it was lifted unconditionally; and the RSS gave no undertaking. If no undertaking was indeed given in 1949, where is the question of reneging on it in 2013?



(S. Gurumurthy is a commentator on political and economic affairs.)


Many of your assessment might certainly be right here but S. Gurumurthy himself is a known RSS protagonist, although i have nothing against RSS, since i have always found them to be performing much better when not meddling in political affairs. i do agree that they guided our society to greater extent till late 1980's in a positive way

Regarding the thread "Modi needs some national icon to find himself a place in the national space that's why he has evoked this sardar patel issue and his statue". RSS certainly do not subscribe to all his theories but they have not choice at present. Has RSS ever given any political statement about sardar sahab till now ? no because they do not subscribe to his type of secular approach
 
Not only that He also deserves the title of "Father of the Nation“ more than that anyone else specially Gandhi I hate to see his image printed on my hard earned money :angry:

All that hate of Gandhi and praise to the man who was a devoted follower of his. Either Patel was stupid or he was not. If he wasn't, then Gandhi was a great man, someone who the Sardar followed devotedly all of his life.

As for him possibly changing India if he was PM, such talk shows a poor grasp of history(far more than Modi's gaffes). Sardar Patel died in 1950 & suffered from very poor health throughout his last year. Nehru died in 1964. It still wouldn't have mattered. There were no other leaders bigger than Nehru. Nehru would still have been our longest serving PM. Sardar Patel's contribution was extraordinary for the short period of service he was able to give our fledgling nation as a minister. We must be thankful for that. Belittling that contribution by making silly & fantastic claims is pointless.
 
Pt Nehru was not military minded at all. He failed to anticipate what threats a country like India can face. And he believed in Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai, that India and China can form an Asian axis to counter the traditional prowess of the west. Even today we know its too good to be true. Chinese replied to Nehru's brotherhood proposal by invading our borders in 1962.
Pt Nehru's patriotism was second to none. Anyone who has read his book "Discovery of India" would know how much pride he felt in being an Indian. But as far as military matters are considered, a man like Sardar Patel would have definitely made a better PM.
 
so, the new era has started, soon people will be openly discussing the bad decisions taken by nehru-gandhi. And major change of re thinking on policies will occur.
 
and he wont mind sacrificing people like Bhagat Singh for his ego...and he wont mind calling off protests which could have broken the british raj(talking about non cooperation movement)...he would rather play politics with Bose than be selfless.

Gandhi is anything but selfless and yeah i am not among those who think Gandhi won us the freedom..African countries got freedom without Gandhi and 2nd WW was much bigger reason than Gandhi for India's independence.


Gandhi didnt win India freedom, the people did. And Gandhi whether you like it or not was the spearhead of that movement of people.

Bhagat Singh and Bose stood for everything Gandhi was against. Bose was trying to win away India like Mao with China. Say what you will about Bose, but god knows what India would've become if he won that fight.
 
@wanglaokan Good to see a rare sensible Chinese member on this forum, I have seen your posts in some other thread also, you are different, I remember another Chinese member @StarCraft_ZT who is also different from other Chinese members. :) See, the problem is that, some of the Chinese members on PDF are not only trolling, but they are actually being abusive and racist, thus we find it very hard to tolerate them. And these people are making Indians inimical to Chinese members on this forum. I used to avoid such discussions, but now I am also replying in the same manner sometimes. I don't know who started it first, and when, but things are now bad here on PDF.

Indians don't really hate Chinese people, but we are also not comfortable with certain actions of Chinese Govt. Border tension is there, and you can't really expect us to be comfortable with China's military assistance to Pakistan, we are constantly in a low-level war with them. One can't be true friend with a country who is militarily supporting a enemy country!! But I hope things will be better in future.
About Chinese food; Chinese food is popular in India. We have a Chinese community and a China Town in Kolkata, they are Indian citizen with voting rights. I know a Chinese restaurant owner, a Han Chinese, who told me that Northern Chinese prefer less spicy food, but Southern Chinese prefer spicy food like Indians (sometimes even more spicy food than Indians, as he said). He also told me that food served in most Chinese restaurants in Kolkata are authentic, same as in Southern China. But we also have our Indian versions of Chinese food. :)


Just to give you some idea about Indian Chinese food:
http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/x9Lobu7LUp9I9m0AcMTPZO/Kolkata-Chromosome--The-last-emperor.html
http://travel.cnn.com/mumbai/none/indian-chinese-food-598134
http://www.zomato.com/kolkata/restaurants/chinese


And some famous Indian Chinese:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiyang_Chаng
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jwala_Gutta


Sorry others for going off-topic. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom