[nukkad] explanation of history

[Akshay Joshi <>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the day:  Prune messages that you are forwarding or replying to include 
only the relevant material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

hi folks,
 slist@epsilon.pair.com wrote
  << Akshayji's criticism of Gandhiji was supported by Rohitji. I have
however
the following observations to make.
It is true that the weakening of British military and economic power was a
factor in India gaining independence in 1947. But that alone is not the
reason for the end of British rule in India.In the aftermath of WW2, the
French were economically and militarily weaker than the British; yet they
continued to hold on to their colonies in India for a good 6 years after the
British left. >>

 for a start 6 years is not a long time at all considering the long history
of colonisation.the conclusion is that war weakened the colonial powers
leading to disintegration of respective empires.if u notice in case of
spanish colonies there was armed conflicts(che guvera in latin america n
american war in cuba) and they were freed much before us.to be precise it
was in the start of this century itself.so the very fact that we got freedom
after WW2 shows that it was destruction caused by war rather than popular
movement that ended imperialism.not to mention that richard clement atlee -
the very man who was forced to grant us freedom - - has quoted this more
than once - - "india would not have won freedom if not for subhash chandra
bose n weakening of the british indian army due to cadets switching loyalty
to india" - - indian army was the pillar of british power in india n its
weakening dealt a body blow to them rather than anything else.

<< Witness the huge
success of non-co-operation movement when it was launched in 1920. In spite
of the success of the movement, it fizzled out the moment Gandhiji decided
to withdraw the movement in 1922. He relaunched the movement in 1930 and
again it was popular. >>

that was the biggest blunder n the repurcussions of that particular disaster
can be seem in the form of hindu discontent n anger even to this day.let me
explain properly.i think his attitude was defeatist n he thrived on mercy of
the antagonist.  to top it all he forced his views down the throat of his
supporters.it was not a non-cooperation movement for independence in the
first place.it was to appease the muslims who later betrayed the cause of
free india by demanding n creating pakistan. in WW1 turkey was defeated and
the caliphate which was considered holy by all muslims was abolished. the
Ali brothers wanted to rebel against the british only for this purpose n not
for indian swaraj. gandhi started the whole policy of unwarranted appeasing
by agreeing to this demand.he actually took the step of placing the khilafat
before poorna swaraj. non-cooperation movement was for khilafat n not sawraj
n what could be more defeatist than this -- well the stance he shold have
taken is who needs u guys if u dont want to join us. - - and ask me what did
we get in return for this kindness n tolerance?? - -the ali brothers
actually ready to invite king of afghanistan to invade india n actually said
"it is the duty of muslims of fight against hindus if the latter decide to
disallow invasion of india".not only this but there was a mooplah rebellion
in kerala(in 1921) - a so called rebellion against land-lords & against
destruction of caliphate in turkey - - but this excuse was used to butcher
hindus(who were mere bystanders) in the cruellest manner possible n forcibly
convert them.gandhi never reacted to this and made an extremely foolish
statement which said " the hindus should not mind the killing - - it is
being done by some people who consider it as a religious purpose".it is
highly ironical that the turks themselves overthrew the caliph n choose
kemal pasha as the ruler of turkey.gandhi then entirely forgot the promise
of swaraj within 1 year that he had made(just like politicians of today).
non-cooperation was relaunched only in 1930 when other revelutionaries had
begun to steal the lime-light n congress wanted some action to get it
back.he played with peoples trust on him.

well just the fact that someone is popular does not mean that the person was
a good leader.history after all is written by the winner n congress has
distorted history to no end because after british left n with subhash
chandra bose dead they had a field day. the masses are generally ignorant
easily mislead n diefy people too soon.megalomaniacs play on peoples
insecurity n need for someone to call leader to satisfy their ego. it is a
very wrong notion that megalomaniacs are intimidating n belligerent like
hitler n stalin.they can come in disguised saintly packages like gandhi who
used to hold the whole nation to ranson for his egoistic unrealistic morals.
at least educated people must judge leaders by what good they have done
rather than the popularity they command.for all his popularity he could not
uproot the british empire by himself,could not improve the quality of life
for indians,could not unite the hindus n muslims,could not better the lot of
untouchables n dalits(ambedkar had to do the good work),could not prevent
partition n the large scale killing that followed.
lemme give u examples of popular leaders n their little known deeds.

stalin was a popular leader - -  he has killed 10 million(not a hyped
figure: confirm if u so wish) ukrainians just because he wanted to enforce
his policy of collective farming n they opposed it.this is apart from the
thousands others he killed for purely personal insecurities.

closer home - -laloo prasad yadav is a very popular leader n is an elected
one - -  we all know how great he is(in plundering wealth).

nehru & indira gandhi(some might debate this) -- very popular figures but
this great land with copious natural n human resource has been laid waste n
degraded thanks to their selfish policies n fancies.

now a final real life analogy in case u dont understand why i place the
blame in the way i do. look - - a mother has two children one is a real
child n other a step child(thats because he is originaly from outside the
country). the mother has some insecurity in mind n keeps pampering the step
child to no end. the step child merely grows more n more demanding,the real
child feels that "inspite of me being the real child i am on the recieving
end all the time" but doest speak out because she is mother after
all.someday patience breaks n the normally tolerant n peaceful real child
breaks down , hits hard n takes out his frustration on the step-child .he
doesnt understand that its the mothers fault  - for him its the step child
that is the cause of his sorrows.
so now that u have a birds eye view of the situation can u tell me who is at
fault?? - - its the mother who in the political world is "CONGRESS N ITS
APPEASEMENT POLICIES". get rid of them if u dont want things to get worse
oterwise a civil war or holocaust is imminent. implement  uniform civil code
n end all subsidies/conversions etc immedietly lest complete breakdown
occur.its neither the hindus nor the muslims who are at fault both r merely
behaving as they naturally would - - - the fault is of the "CONGRESS PARTY N
THE PSEUDO-SECULAR MEDIA".
 - - Akshay(ready for all kinds of pro-anti views n more debate with an open
mind.)




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe [Unsubscribe] send a blank message to 
        nukkad-list-request@mumbai-central.com 
with the word 'subscribe' ['unsubscribe'] (without quotes) in the Subject 
of your message.
The list is archived at  http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/archive.html