|Originally posted by : Sh. P Suresh
Originally posted by : Democratic Indian
Census data is collected with due care by due process of law ....
Summarily, it will be nice if the member account stops using the pseudo name & comes on his/her real, correct name.
Next, the lion's figure is nice. God bless all of his creatures. But, for God's sake, please do not use it in that space.
Originally posted by : Democratic Indian
...... did not have such leader to guide them and trusted those who were unworthy of trust i.e. the solemn promises of M. K. Gandhi and J. L. Nehru .....
The earlier post names the personage who made so many sacrifices in his personal life, led a simple life though he could have afforded a lavish style in bad light & it is an insult worthy of being cognized. His principles, that life style is more right, worthy of emulating today also & will be so hence forth too.
1. For your information it is the login id and not name. Even if it is my name, you have no right to tell me to use some other name or so called real or correct name. My name is my personal domain. I can have countless names and keep them changing every moment. It is my personal choice of God given freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty is all about making free choices. I have made a free choice to use Democratic Indian as my login id. What is your problem with it?
2. I chosen to use lion's picture. It is my personal choice of God given freedom and liberty. Freedom and liberty is all about making free choices. What is your problem with it?
3. What real sacrifice did that "personage" make? Did he suffer life imprisonment or hanged to death? British did not leave Indian sub continent because of him. It is the Second World War that bankrupted the British Empire and the Indian subcontinent became a liability. They vacated not only Indian sub continent but almost 40 other colonies around the same time. Transfer of political power did not come by sacrifices by the majority in this country but by an accident of history. Almost 80% of sacrifices like suffering life imprisonments or being hanged to death were suffered by a tiny minority of this subcontinent. Please read the authentic history and not some concocted versions of "history".
Following is portion from the same book mentioned earlier in this thread. It clearly shows who Mr. M. K. Gandhi really was -
Before the proposals were announced, the Cabinet Mission and the Viceroy called a conference starting May 5, 1946, in Simla, of Congress and League leaders, to which Master Tara Singh as representative of the Sikhs, was also invited. Maulana Azad, President of the Congress, while objecting to parity between groups in the Executive and Legislature, was in favour of doing “everything possible to remove fears and suspicions from the mind of every group and community.” 147 As against that, on May 8, Gandhi in a letter to Cripps, objecting to the provisions of parity between 6 Hindu majority provinces with population of 190 million and 5 Muslim majority provinces of 90 million, wrote, “This is really worse than Pakistan.” Instead, he wanted the composition of the Central Legislature and Executive on the basis of population. 148 In the words of H. M. Seervai, “The Congress opposition to parity marks a watershed in the history of the Congress and its fight for the independence of a united India.” 149 Gandhi had now decided to break the unity of India, for he was not willing to allay the genuine fears of 90 mn Muslims. Seervai avers that “after the 1945-46 elections, nationalist Muslims could play no effective part in the Congress”.
Even more, a staunch Muslim like Maulana Azad became the mouth- piece for doctrines which he reported as “injurious to the unity of India.” 150 Moreover, “How little Azad counted in shaping Congress policy even before he ceased to be the Congress President (emphasis in original) is demonstrated by the interview which Azad and Nehru had with the Mission and the Viceroy.” 151
Gandhi, Nehru and Patel were now working at cross purposes with Azad who was still the President of the Congress. Gandhi also wanted to show Azad his place as a mere Muslim showboy when he wrote to him on August 16, “I did not infer from your letter that you are writing about my Hindus. Whatever you have in your heart has not appeared in your writing. . . . whatever you want to say about the communal problem should not be said without consulting me and the Working Committee.” 152
Gandhi’s ploy. When it suited him he would say he is nobody in the Congress. Now he claims special prerogative for “my Hindus”.
If Gandhi for the sake of ‘my Hindus’ would not offer the requisite assurances to 90 mn Muslims and consider Pakistan a better proposition than treat them equally, and brusquely shut up Maulana Azad, Congress President of six years standing, what fate could await the tiny 5-6 million Sikhs whom he never considered as a separate community? The Sikh leaders oblivious of the danger threatening them proceeded ahead non-challantly. Tara Singh pointedly asked Sir Pethick Lawrence on May 25, “What is the significance of recognising the Sikhs as one of main communities” and sought certain clarifications. 153 He instead should have asserted his position, but lacked clear objectives.
Listen to the interview of Retd. Justice Markandey Katju below -
Practically in short he is saying that the Indian State has collapsed and is withering away. At around 19 minutes 27 seconds into the interview he clearly asserts that Gandhi was a big fraud, Subhash Chandra Bose was lackey of the Japanese, Tagore was a British stooge and the people have been be-fooled.