eCharcha.Com   Support eCharcha.Com. Click on sponsor ad to shop online!

Advertise Here

Go Back   eCharcha.Com > eCharcha Lounge > View - Counter View

Notices

View - Counter View Topics which have two differing view points

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old February 5th, 2013, 11:34 AM
sanjayt's Avatar
sanjayt sanjayt is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cygnus X-1
Posts: 2,067
sanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceSeeker View Post
I think Gandhi was like this:
If Nehru said "I am the one who should be the PM", Gandhi would go to Patel (or any other candidate) and tell him "Pls let Nehru be the PM". If Patel had said "No. I am the one who is worthy and whom ppl want to be the PM", he would go back to Nehru and tell him "Why dont you give Patel a chance?". So on and so forth till one of the two relents. So, it may seem that Gandhi made decisions. But actually, the two did. Either Patel relented or never harboured a huge desire to be the PM.
Thanks my inkling. I may be wrong.
The way I think of it ... At that time, Congress had a depth of leadership that is unimaginable today because of the unwritten dynastic succession rules. Also, I think the leadership during that era was driven more by idealism. It is difficult to link the political leadership of India today with idealism.

At that time, a lot of them made sacrifices in their personal lives and personal careers to work towards a cause (independence) that was larger than their own narrow self-interests. I don't think it is easy to put aside your family life, your own career, and your own interests to do something for a public cause.

All said and done, I think Nehru was a great PM. He did whatever he could in those difficult conditions. Sure, he made some mistakes. But if we had a PM who wanted a Hindu Rashtra (I mean a theocracy), I think it would have been terrible for us. I don't know how much clout the Hindu Mahasabha wielded then. But I don't think any of the top leadership in the Congress of that era wanted a Hindu Rashtra. They were all enamoured with the beauty of secularism; that attraction was irresistible.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old February 6th, 2013, 09:04 AM
PeaceSeeker PeaceSeeker is offline
In search of peace!
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Borderline
Posts: 6,175
PeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjayt View Post
The way I think of it ... At that time, Congress had a depth of leadership that is unimaginable today because of the unwritten dynastic succession rules. Also, I think the leadership during that era was driven more by idealism. It is difficult to link the political leadership of India today with idealism.

At that time, a lot of them made sacrifices in their personal lives and personal careers to work towards a cause (independence) that was larger than their own narrow self-interests. I don't think it is easy to put aside your family life, your own career, and your own interests to do something for a public cause.

All said and done, I think Nehru was a great PM. He did whatever he could in those difficult conditions. Sure, he made some mistakes. But if we had a PM who wanted a Hindu Rashtra (I mean a theocracy), I think it would have been terrible for us. I don't know how much clout the Hindu Mahasabha wielded then. But I don't think any of the top leadership in the Congress of that era wanted a Hindu Rashtra. They were all enamoured with the beauty of secularism; that attraction was irresistible.
you make too much out of a Hindu Rashtra. A hindu society will automatically be secular (much similar to as it is today). Hinduism is not a product on sale with sales targets to meet.
__________________
Only peace remains at last!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old February 6th, 2013, 09:24 AM
sanjayt's Avatar
sanjayt sanjayt is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cygnus X-1
Posts: 2,067
sanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond reputesanjayt has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

If you say so, Bhaiyya.

But let us solemnly resolve not to use Balushi Saheb as any kind of benchmark.

True, it may not be easy to construct a theocratic state based on Hinduism. With religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam since they are a people of the Book it would be far easier to build a theocratic state.

Wasn't Nepal a Hindu Kingdom back then? Probably the only Hindu state back then? I think they intend to be a secular republic now though.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old February 7th, 2013, 09:22 AM
PeaceSeeker PeaceSeeker is offline
In search of peace!
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Borderline
Posts: 6,175
PeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond reputePeaceSeeker has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjayt View Post
If you say so, Bhaiyya.

But let us solemnly resolve not to use Balushi Saheb as any kind of benchmark.

True, it may not be easy to construct a theocratic state based on Hinduism. With religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam since they are a people of the Book it would be far easier to build a theocratic state.

Wasn't Nepal a Hindu Kingdom back then? Probably the only Hindu state back then? I think they intend to be a secular republic now though.
balushahi is no benchmark. the goals are defined in the bop i guess. interpretations and implementation can be individual choice.
__________________
Only peace remains at last!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old April 6th, 2014, 08:12 PM
sgars's Avatar
sgars sgars is offline
2
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mid West
Posts: 6,660
sgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanjayt View Post
If you say so, Bhaiyya.

But let us solemnly resolve not to use Balushi Saheb as any kind of benchmark.

True, it may not be easy to construct a theocratic state based on Hinduism. With religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam since they are a people of the Book it would be far easier to build a theocratic state.

Wasn't Nepal a Hindu Kingdom back then? Probably the only Hindu state back then? I think they intend to be a secular republic now though.
The country with the largest number of peaceful guys i.e. Indonesia is also secular. In fact, probably Hinduism is more respected there than it is in maybe Azamgarh and Nadia. The president's name goes by Meghawati Sukarnoputri (apparently christened by Biju Patnaik)

There is also Turkey. One of my friends visited there and his comments were, "It does not look feel like a peaceful country". And had Gandhiji's Khilafat movement actually succeded, it might have been a competitor to Saudi Arabia.

More on this later on. There was an interesting reference to ancient peaceful world by Neil De Grasse Tyson in Cosmos tonight. He refers to Al Hazen and that 1000 years back peaceful guys were much more open.. Let me wiki and google that and come back.
__________________
This is quite a game, politics. There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends,only permanent interests. - Some Firang
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old April 6th, 2014, 08:17 PM
sgars's Avatar
sgars sgars is offline
2
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mid West
Posts: 6,660
sgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond reputesgars has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Coming back to the original topic. The best source for all this is 'Freedom at Midnight' by by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre. As per this, Godse and co were planning to Kill Jinnah till Gandhiji did a fast until death demanding among other things payment of 50 crores to Pakistan.

Then they decided, 'Lets deal with him first'. For those who support this, dont you think that it was a bit too late, i.e. the damage was already done.
__________________
This is quite a game, politics. There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends,only permanent interests. - Some Firang

Last edited by sgars; April 7th, 2014 at 08:44 AM. Reason: Fixed the Author names
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TOI Frontpage on 1st January Gajodhar Indian Politics 21 January 2nd, 2010 12:18 PM
View: This forum is not being used Counter-View: No dont close it echarcha View - Counter View 35 December 23rd, 2009 12:51 AM
Asteroid could hit Mars in January 2gud Taaza Khabar - Current news 0 December 21st, 2007 02:47 PM
26 January 1950: India becomes a republic Cooldude Indian Politics 2 January 26th, 2007 07:33 AM
Anyone in Mumbai after 22nd January 2001? echarcha Feedback 8 January 17th, 2001 03:31 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Site Copyright © eCharcha.Com 2000-2012.