A look back at the partition

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 13 Dec 2009 06:23

That Azad article is a keeper. Truly eye opening.

Vriksh · Post by **Vriksh** » 13 Dec 2009 07:15

The Azad-Shorish article is a fake! No such article exists in record.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Dec 2009 23:39

Will find ref for this:

It was the Mughals who put in place prohibition on firearms(bandooks) to be carried by commoners. The British codified it after 1857.

And added swords etc over 6" length in the Indian Arms Act 1861. Some 'martial' people were exempted along with museum pieces.

You needed a permit for all this.

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 14 Dec 2009 22:44

Apologies if OT.
Five AMU branches in the country soon
Curious why is public money being spent on opening campuses of a religious univ.?

The 'prestigious' institute will branch out in Murshidabad (West Bengal), Mallapuram (Kerala), Kishanganj (Bihar) and one place each in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, Maulana, a member from Kishanganj in Bihar, told PTI.

The locations seem like possible nuclei of future separatist movements. In a country in which trivial matters relate to street protests and 'infrastructure enhancement' this blatant misuse of public funds for religious propagation while primary and secondary health/education remains underfunded is baffling.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 15 Dec 2009 02:39

How about funds for revival at least of the Buddhist universities? Surely they are a "minority", and "non-Hindu", and non-casteist, pro-Dalit, non-"Hindu fascists"?

Masaru · Post by **Masaru** » 15 Dec 2009 04:22

brihaspati wrote:How about funds for revival at least of the Buddhist universities?

I guess they are not a vote bank, are generally quiet and non violent. All of which are big disqualifications in the democrazy political calculations.

Sarcasm aside GoI runs all around the world begging for funds to restart Nalanda but when it comes to starting univ.s for the followers of religion of peace the funds materialize without any problem. At the very least Nalanda and other places should be developed under the head of protection and renewal of historical sites.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Jan 2010 14:14

Shourie on Jinnah & Partition

"The best thing that has happened for us is the Partition. It has given us breathing time, a little time to resurrect and save our pluralist culture and religions. Had it not happened, we would have been bullied and thrashed and swamped by Islamic fundamentalists," he says.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 11 Jan 2010 13:50

SSridhar wrote:Shourie on Jinnah & Partition

"The best thing that has happened for us is the Partition. It has given us breathing time, a little time to resurrect and save our pluralist culture and religions. Had it not happened, we would have been bullied and thrashed and swamped by Islamic fundamentalists," he says.

But the Islamic fundamentalists wanted Pakistan precisely because they were afraid that the aforementioned would happen to them.

And I am a great admirer of the realpolitic understanding and use of that knowledge by Islamic fundamentalists.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 11 Jan 2010 21:46

"Quote:
"The best thing that has happened for us is the Partition. It has given us breathing time, a little time to resurrect and save our pluralist culture and religions. Had it not happened, we would have been bullied and thrashed and swamped by Islamic fundamentalists," he says."

And also to preserve the Indic nature and ethos of India, which tends to tolerance and pluralism as you have noted. There is no moral equation here, though, with the Islamist motivation. The Islamist idea is homogeneity; Islam or bust.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2010 14:26

Hello Varoon; Welcome to BRF, (as I dont think we have interacted before) -- assuming that your reply was in response to my post, I would say that probably owing to the fact that you have not seen my views before, you have misinterpreted my statement.

I would never think in terms of moral equivalence.

However I think the Islamic fundamentalists were right when they though that a united independent India would wipe out the exclusivist, some Indians are different from other Indians thinking totally.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 12 Jan 2010 14:35

I wonder how many regret that those who felt marginalised have gone to Pakistan.

They thought they found their homeland, but they are still at sixes and sevens since they don't know what they want or what they are.

If they were still here, it would be a greater chaos for India.

I am glad that though it is not perfect, we have a 'controlled chaos' and still stepping out boldly and with confidence into the wide world!

JMT.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2010 14:49

What of the population if no partition; is a discussion which can be seen in the preceding pages of this very thread, which address various topics including the one above ones.

I do hope who ever has read the previous statements would also perhaps like to go back and read the discussion from the first few pages (not reproducing here in order to avoid needless repetition)

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 12 Jan 2010 22:34

"However I think the Islamic fundamentalists were right when they though that a united independent India would wipe out the exclusivist, some Indians are different from other Indians thinking totally."

Exactly Sanku. It's that fear of the 'wiping out' or absorption of the exclusivist, that was a motive of the Islamists. The fear and neurosis of the pre-partition Moslem elite, most egregiously exemplified by Jinnah, that they would not be top dog in an independent India, was the other motivating factor.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Jan 2010 22:38

Varoon Shekhar wrote:"However I think the Islamic fundamentalists were right when they though that a united independent India would wipe out the exclusivist, some Indians are different from other Indians thinking totally."

Exactly Sanku. It's that fear of the 'wiping out' or absorption of the exclusivist, that was a motive of the Islamists. The fear and neurosis of the pre-partition Moslem elite, most egregiously exemplified by Jinnah, that they would not be top dog in an independent India, was the other motivating factor.

There is something else also. The revival of the old Mughal rule and days of glory of imperialism is strong factor. Just like the British are still aware of the Empire and nostalgic about it. But they are practical people.
Jinnah and his cabal were not practical when revived the Muslim nation. Muslims do not constitute a nation. Period.
Otherwise all the 50 odd muslim nations would be one nation.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Jan 2010 22:40

Varoon Shekhar wrote:"However I think the Islamic fundamentalists were right when they though that a united independent India would wipe out the exclusivist, some Indians are different from other Indians thinking totally."

Exactly Sanku. It's that fear of the 'wiping out' or absorption of the exclusivist, that was a motive of the Islamists. The fear and neurosis of the pre-partition Moslem elite, most egregiously exemplified by Jinnah, that they would not be top dog in an independent India, was the other motivating factor.

I think we agree with a minor difference, I do not thing the was neurosis (as in misplaced fear), they were right, they read the leaves correctly, India without partition would have no space for identity politics (as happened after partition and not only based on religious identity)

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 13 Jan 2010 02:38

A write up by Rajinder Puri

http://www.boloji.com/myword/mw150.htm

Gandhi had realized that he had been outsmarted by the British. They had successfully isolated him from Nehru and Patel. Only young firebrands Jayaprakash Narain and Ram Manohar Lohia supported Gandhi’s view in the CWC.

Gandhi wrote to Jinnah seeking permission to settle down in Pakistan in order to work for Indo-Pakistan unity. Jinnah concurred. He invited Gandhi to Karachi . Gandhi sought permission to settle down in Lahore with 50 Punjabi refugee families then settled in Delhi ’s Purana Quila camp.

There had been five attempts on Gandhi’s life before Godse killed him. Yet Godse was not apprehended. Was he manipulated as, some theorists claim, was President Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, decades later? That aspect deserves a separate article. But suffice to say that after Gandhi’s murder Jayaprakash Narain accused the Home Ministry of criminal negligence, hinting at complicity, in the murder of Gandhi.

Writing his last will and testament by which he sought the dissolution of the Congress as a political party on the very day of his assassination was a striking coincidence.

He never wavered in his commitment to the agenda of uniting Hindus and Muslims even after Pakistan had been formed. In the end he was defeated. The forces arraigned against him were too powerful.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jan 2010 05:00

By sending away those who were either scared of being assimilated or losing their top-dog ambitions or their exclusivity or whatever - during the Partition - we sent away not only one generation of those assumed "confused", but we gave them the power and opportunity to bring up all future generations descended from them in that very same "confusion". We gave them the opportunity to shield all future descendants from the "insidious" (in their eyes) Bharatyia influence and possible brainwashing. We provided them their own corner where they could carry on their religious mythology and continue to be an originator and exporter of dedicated terrorists. We provided them the opportunity to sell themselves to external powers to preserve and protect their murderous ideological agenda - by being recognized as an independent rashtra.

Partition was a blunder, and no amount of excuses can justify or cover up the strategic myopia of those who aspired for power over the Indian rashtra.

Moreover just because past leadership or elite made blunders does not mean we have to continue to accept that blunder as final and irreversible. The prestige and historical image of an individual leader might be important for those who need to prove their current political legitimacy as being derived from that individual. But the prestige and historical image of an individual leader is not greater than the nation itself.

If we had not allowed the Partition and forced those "confused" elements to stay "within" we would have been able to subject them to alternatives - ideologically, educationally and opportunity wise. Time and again, even on this forum - has not it been loudly pointed out that those confused ones were a minority - and the "majority" decided to stay back? So why this fear and claim that that minority would have gained influence over the majority and the civilizationally "surviving" non-Muslim culture of India - who are supposed to have withstood murderous assaults on their society/culture/civilization by peacefully preaching pure tolerance and assimilation and accommodation to give rise to a mozaic of Indo-Islamic identity? Staying together,why should that process have been jeopardized when that process had supposedly only been interrupted by the European colonial perfidy - and now that they were gone again - shouldnt the process have jump-started back again towards universal tolerance and assimilation?

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 13 Jan 2010 08:23

"We provided them the opportunity to sell themselves to external powers to preserve and protect their murderous ideological agenda -"

Definitely.In addition to the other pernicious effects of partition you mentioned, the creation of Pakistan was/is a Godsend to every unscrupulous arms dealer, cold war jerks, anti-India colonial bigots, Chinese politbureau imperialists and simply mischief mongers and teasers of India in the international media, not excluding countries like Canada and Australia.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 13 Jan 2010 12:55

brihaspati wrote:By sending away those who were either scared of being assimilated or losing their top-dog ambitions or their exclusivity or whatever - during the Partition - we sent away not only one generation of those assumed "confused", but we gave them the power and opportunity to bring up all future generations descended from them in that very same "confusion". We gave them the opportunity to shield all future descendants from the "insidious" (in their eyes) Bharatyia influence and possible brainwashing. We provided them their own corner where they could carry on their religious mythology and continue to be an originator and exporter of dedicated terrorists. We provided them the opportunity to sell themselves to external powers to preserve and protect their murderous ideological agenda - by being recognized as an independent rashtra.

Partition was a blunder, and no amount of excuses can justify or cover up the strategic myopia of those who aspired for power over the Indian rashtra.

Moreover just because past leadership or elite made blunders does not mean we have to continue to accept that blunder as final and irreversible. The prestige and historical image of an individual leader might be important for those who need to prove their current political legitimacy as being derived from that individual. But the prestige and historical image of an individual leader is not greater than the nation itself.

If we had not allowed the Partition and forced those "confused" elements to stay "within" we would have been able to subject them to alternatives - ideologically, educationally and opportunity wise. Time and again, even on this forum - has not it been loudly pointed out that those confused ones were a minority - and the "majority" decided to stay back? So why this fear and claim that that minority would have gained influence over the majority and the civilizationally "surviving" non-Muslim culture of India - who are supposed to have withstood murderous assaults on their society/culture/civilization by peacefully preaching pure tolerance and assimilation and accommodation to give rise to a mozaic of Indo-Islamic identity? Staying together,why should that process have been jeopardized when that process had supposedly only been interrupted by the European colonial perfidy - and now that they were gone again - shouldnt the process have jump-started back again towards universal tolerance and assimilation?

Very noble post.

How do we change this quirk of history in the light of your statement - Moreover just because past leadership or elite made blunders does not mean we have to continue to accept that blunder as final and irreversible.

It is heartening to know that our leadership and elite were and are blithering idiots. The citizens beyond this pale are the real clever people?How and why did the citizenry accept these blithering idiot elite and leaders? Spineless citizenry? Are we any better now?

Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I would rather believe that our Leaders and the elite (whatever be their faults and weakness) did their best given the circumstances of those times. Let us build from what they left us, even if they are wrong. The future beckon brilliant people like say, you. Build and not destroy or complain. We cannot change history, but build upon what is left to us.

It is unfortunate that we weep at the devastation done to us by alien cultures. Indeed, they have done so. Seek within yourself as to why and how they could have done so when we were the majority? Why always find a scapegoat for our own weaknesses? Absolving ourselves that we were not macho enough to kick them in the teeth?

As you say, throughout this forum this wailing and weeping creeps up and we are not ready to admit we were and are a weak and whimpering lot ready to be subjugated or even being kicked around the deck!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 Jan 2010 14:03

The leadership which allowed partition to happen may or may not have been idiots, but it does not automatically follow that either
1) It was the best outcome under the circumstances
2) It was not a blunder.

It was both a blunder and as a result of many of the leaders falling woefully short, Particularly Nehru (who followed it up with many such equal blunders)

Any way you slice it or dice it, the fact does not change -- being a charismatic wearer of Sherwani is no guarantee of being the right leader for India (as we found with Shri Shivraj Patil)

I fail to see the angst at calling a spade a spade.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 13 Jan 2010 15:12

I agree the blithering idiots who were there at Partition did not know as brilliantly as some of us seem to know! How one wishes that such folks as of now who are so brilliant were there!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 13 Jan 2010 15:25

RayC wrote:I agree the blithering idiots who were there at Partition did not know as brilliantly as some of us seem to know! How one wishes that such folks as of now who are so brilliant were there!

I dont you whom you agree with when you agree with the above (considering that no such folks have made such statements here in the forum -- other than you that is) but in any case do give my regards to them.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jan 2010 21:24

Hindsight is 20/20 so things are seen clearly in retrospect. The idea here is to learn what worked and didn't work and rectify it. If one doesn't see the past for what it is, the future will be equally muddled. There is no intent to judge the past, only to learn lessons.

By and large, even in US circles ( eg. US prof at Harvard Belfer Center, in op-ed "Hands Off Kashmir"), the idea of Partition is being seen as a mistake. So the force of history will be to undo it. The question is will India be prepared for it and on what terms?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Jan 2010 23:25

Dont they say we get the leadership we deserve. American got Lincon at crucial time and we had few tired old folks who did not have the stamina left to go to jail or spend time under house arrest. They could not possibly fight a civil war , hence partition which unforunatley was muddled and not clear . Proper and complete population transfer should have been done under the supervision of both countries.Looking forward we should be single minded in getting the land back the land sans current occupiers.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Jan 2010 03:32

A quote from Radha Kumud Mukehrjee in his pamphlet "Akhand Bharat" written in 1945

The value of separate electorate as an obstacle to the
growth of Indian nationalism and as a corresponding aid
to the autocracy of British rule has been very frankly and
freely explained in a letter written by a high dignitary
of Lord Minto's Government to Lady Minto in his letter
to her. It states: "I must send Your Excellency a line
to say that a very big thing has happened today, a work
of statesmanship that will affect India and Indian History
for many a long year. It is nothing less than the pulling
back of 62 millions of people from joining the ranks of
the sod tious opposition." This remark coming from one
in the know shows how a sinister Anglo-Muslim alliance
was being planned by Government to combat the Congress,
the Hindu Mahasabha and other organisations in their
fight for India's freedom. At the same time, it casts an
unmerited slur on a substantial number of nationalist
Muslims who have made common cause with the Congress
in winning for the Mother country, the freedom which is
her birthright.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 14 Jan 2010 18:43

Sanku wrote:
RayC wrote:I agree the blithering idiots who were there at Partition did not know as brilliantly as some of us seem to know! How one wishes that such folks as of now who are so brilliant were there!
I dont you whom you agree with when you agree with the above (considering that no such folks have made such statements here in the forum -- other than you that is) but in any case do give my regards to them.

Clever, clever as ever.

I thought eels are slippery!

Ramana,

Could you amplify as to why the Partition was a mistake?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 14 Jan 2010 22:32

RayC wrote: It is unfortunate that we weep at the devastation done to us by alien cultures. Indeed, they have done so. Seek within yourself as to why and how they could have done so when we were the majority? Why always find a scapegoat for our own weaknesses? Absolving ourselves that we were not macho enough to kick them in the teeth?

As you say, throughout this forum this wailing and weeping creeps up and we are not ready to admit we were and are a weak and whimpering lot ready to be subjugated or even being kicked around the deck!

I have been pondering on this point for a long time.

Perhaps it is the cost a civilization has to pay for being liberal, spiritual and humane. The invasions were not allowed uncontested, and dharmic warriors fought and died in the front lines. When their defenses fell, the society did what it does best. The civilization protected and saved what it values while offering the invaders to take what they value. New warriors will come out of this society and will push these invaders back to their origins. Everything is done at right time.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 15 Jan 2010 00:03

RamaY ,
True about civilizatiobnal factor but how do you propose to discuss with good friends who deny that your civilization ever existed ?
Ray sir ji, why always alludes to weeping at past even when subject matter under discussion is entirely opposite i.e daring them to their destruction.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 15 Jan 2010 00:15

Talking about weapons!! Weapons are a must for each and every individual (second amendment to the constitution in USA).

There is a reason that Guru Gobind Singh gave Kirpan to the Khalsa

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Shastar_Nam_Mala

To read shaster nama click below

http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=1357

Just check the name and type of the Weapons that Guru Gobind Singh uses and mentions in his poem Shastar Nama

Sarohi (special sword made in Sarohi, Rajasthan)
Saif (straight sword)
Asi (bent sword)
Turwar (sword)
Satrantak (sword - destroyer of the enemy)
Kavchantak (armour severing sword)
Jamdaadh (dagger with two blades)
Tega (broad & straight sword)
Khanda (double-edged blade)
Kharag (sword)
Tabar (battle-axe)
Sehthi (spear)
karad (small sword) usualy used as symbol and kept in hairs
Tulvar (sword)
karwaar (shamsheer=sword)
Katar (which destroys the demons) jungi name of shri sahib
Bichhua (crooked dagger)
Baank (kind of sword)
tufang (matchlock musket)
Bugda (a bent cutlass or dagger)
Bisikh (arrow without feathers)
Khagarbhan (arrow, which moves in the sky)
Kaiber (special arrow)
Khatang (a rare type of wooden arrow)
Tatarcho (an unusual arrow)
Sasbaan (special arrow with a half moon end)
Patis (double-edged sword)
Sakkar (special arrow)
Jamdhar (a dagger like a tooth)
Jamdhara (a double faced blade)
Jodhantak (sword and arrow that destroys warriors)
Shasterser (King of arms)
Samrantak (sword, which ends battle)
Sipra (arrow, which breaks a shield)
Sattar (sword type)
Sarangaar (sword, which cuts bow)
Tupak (gun)

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 15 Jan 2010 05:41

Prem wrote:RamaY ,
True about civilizatiobnal factor but how do you propose to discuss with good friends who deny that your civilization ever existed ?
Ray sir ji, why always alludes to weeping at past even when subject matter under discussion is entirely opposite i.e daring them to their destruction.

Daring them to destruction?

Is it feasible?

If so, what is the route?

War?

If it were that easy, then why did we wait till the became a nuclear country and thereby raising the cost?

Therefore, what is the PRACTICAL solution? Can venting anger and frustration destroy them?

The civilisation surely existed. But instead of resting on the laurels of that civilisation of which there is hardly much to see except for the ruins and hardly discernible amongst the population which is too busy eking out an existence, it is to my way of looking at it is, is to take stock, move on and build a glorious present.

Abhi_G · Post by **Abhi_G** » 15 Jan 2010 20:28

There are justified allegations of bungling by INC with regard to the partition. However, one would also have to look into the interwar years as to how a provincial system of government emerged in India, in which indigenous leaders could participate. This action reflects the INC philosophy of working with the brits until the goal of complete independence is reached.

INC emerged as the majority party the provincial govts. after 1935. This in N.S. Sarila's words was the "quiet reconquest of India by MKG" (Shadow of the Great Game) - I think the author is pretty much indicating that the system of democratic representation of those times was the precursor of what we have today. Some interesting things appear in the Govt. of India Act of 1935.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government ... of_the_Act

Muslim League was routed. In 1939, Linlithgow declared India as a belligenrent in WW2 without consulting the INC. In protest, INC resigned enmasse from the provincial govts. Jinnah is quoted to have said that this is a "Himalayan Blunder" on part of the INC and he actively jumped into the vacuum to assure Linlithgow of all assistance in the brit war effort. There was no looking back for Jinnah after this time.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Apr 2010 23:14

Paul has an insightful post about Jaswant Singh and his relatives in Sindh.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 54#p856354

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 21 Apr 2010 21:16

http://www.sikhchic.com/partition/broth ... _partition

Brothers Reunited 63 years after Partition

...
It was an emotional reunion this week between Sardar Kartar Singh and Chaudhry Sultan Mehmood after the partition of the subcontinent separated them 63 years ago.
...
She urged the Pakistani government to allow Sikh pilgrims to visit their native towns where they used to live before partition.

She said a large number of Sikhs fled from various areas which now form part of Pakistan after the partition in 1947, including Sialkot, Lahore, Kasur and Nankana Sahib, to East Punjab in India but were never allowed to visit their native villages and ancestral houses where they lived before partition.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Apr 2010 02:33

ramana wrote:Paul has an insightful post about Jaswant Singh and his relatives in Sindh.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 54#p856354

X-post...

Rupesh wrote:link

Read it if you are in a mood to Puke..

During the Q and A session, Jaswant repeats his soft-spoken conviction: “The real renaissance of Islam would have taken place in undivided India if there had not been a partition.” He does not go into much detail, but here is one lead for our religious scholars/academics to follow and prove or disprove Jaswant’s contention. While such a topic can never lock in a conclusion due to the pluralistic viewpoints Hindus and Muslims hold on this sensitive subject, it does not hurt to open the forum. A Pakistani-American once said to me that Islam in its pure and unadulterated sense will descend on Pakistan one day. “It will come from outside; not from within Pakistan

“You don’t condemn a subcontinent because you are tired,” says Jaswant of the indecent haste in which the British quit India. “Nehru too was in a hurry because he too was tired. Do tired men carve out nations? Jinnah wasn’t impatient even though he knew his time on earth was ending. United India was broken hastily… great events are often accompanied by small events that leave behind issues that the coming generations have to pay for.”

We sit in pin drop silence listening to his powerful thesis delivered in an authoritatively mellifluous tone loud enough to thunder across the hall of over 1,000 initiated. He tells us how the young Nehru, “born with a silver spoon” was groomed by his father to enter politics, while Jinnah was a self-made man, who until he became a successful lawyer, would walk to his place of work and live in a shanty hotel in Bombay. Jinnah would say: “There’s a place at the top always; but you have to climb the stairs. There’s no lift”!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 27 Apr 2010 21:21

There are portions of JS ji's arguments I like - because they identify the correct policies. But then justifies giving all the wrong reasons. Unless he is a psy_ops master which I am not so sure of. And then why and how Jinnah is spared the debt of blood and shame of Hindus and Sikhs during the Partition? That alone makes him a criminal against humanity, and no amount of "prior life" behaviour or "personal qualities" absolves the person! By that token, Stalin, Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Mao - all had charming little qualities and admirable characteristics as persons.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 27 Apr 2010 22:53

Jaswant Singh has done some massive psy-ops in his book.

He has called Pakis, Pakis to their face and they are taking it as a compliment and lapping it up.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 27 Apr 2010 23:16

Sanku wrote:Jaswant Singh has done some massive psy-ops in his book.

He has called Pakis, Pakis to their face and they are taking it as a compliment and lapping it up.

Shsh... dont even reveal it in the open

Sanju · Post by **Sanju** » 27 Apr 2010 23:52

Many a modern nation has been created based on certain circumstances that happened /took place at that particular point of time. In hindsight we may think that certain individuals did things that today we are aghast at or wonder about.

However, what is galling is that there is a concerted effort at obscuring the Himalayan blunders committed by certain worthies, instead of studying them to avoid them in the future. Mistakes happen, however, not questioning them is a tragedy. The people who have taken the mantle of the erstwhile INC over the past 60+ years have been conducting a propaganda of "Goebbelsian" proportions.

It seems like the British left India in the hands of their caretakers who are using exactly the same tools used by the British to run the country. Did we actually gain Independence from the British or have replaced the White Saheb with the Brown Saheb?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Apr 2010 23:56

^

Such a logical/analytical study (of the failure of Indian leaders) would go against the principles of {colonized} education system.

Imagine the repercussions of allowing such a logical/factual/analytical study of Indian history. Will such a study stop with post-1947 India?

Sanju · Post by **Sanju** » 28 Apr 2010 00:38

RamaY,
I fully agree with you that's why my angst!

Our current culture seems to be deep rooted in playing the blame game, instead of avoiding similar mistakes. It is the fear of finding mistakes rather than the mistakes that has kept the rulers of India mainly occupied in their "jihad" of suppression, fabrication and obfuscation.