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
  #1  
Old February 3rd, 2013, 09:43 PM
sgars's Avatar
sgars sgars is offline
2
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mid West
Posts: 6,825
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
30 January alternate view

There are currently 2 views on 30th January -

1. PC view is that Godse was an assasin and had committed a henious crime.

2. Contrarian view is that Gandhi deserved it because he was responsible for partition as well as some favor to Pakistan by giving 50 Crores

I want to take this Godse thing a bit further. If Godse did indeed think what Gandhiji did was wrong and was a disaster, what exactly did he achieve by killing him.
The partition, 50 Crores and other things had already happened, i.e. 'the damage was already done'.

Another theory is that Godse got himself circumsized and wanted it to appear as if a Musllim so that there was firther large scale rioting. That obviously did not happen. In fact to that end, Godse could have disguised as a Muslim and gone to Pakistan and tried making his kill there.

My take is as follows.
1. Godse actually did a favor on Gandhiji by making him a martyr. Perhaps he is one of the oldest if not the oldest person to be assasinated. At 78, he had lived more than what Nehru and Patel had lived. Gandhi was already a broken man and might have faded into oblivion had he lived on. He may have occasionally put agitations against Nehru's 'Temples of Modern India' and become a pain in the neck.

2. The whole assasin gang were a bunch of amateur losers. With that kind of preparation they had, they woud not not even be able to bump a Municipal corporator in the current day.
__________________
This is quite a game, politics. There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends,only permanent interests. - Some Firang
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old February 3rd, 2013, 09:59 PM
swami's Avatar
swami swami is offline
Super eCharchan
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,806
swami has a reputation beyond reputeswami has a reputation beyond reputeswami has a reputation beyond reputeswami has a reputation beyond reputeswami has a reputation beyond reputeswami has a reputation beyond reputeswami has a reputation beyond reputeswami has a reputation beyond reputeswami has a reputation beyond reputeswami has a reputation beyond reputeswami has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Agree, if Gandhi had died a natural death we would see Nehru's pic on currency notes today
Why only Nehru,it would have been Sanjay,Indira,Rajiv and Rahul

Godse, I think wanted fame
__________________
There are four kinds of people to avoid in the world: the assholes, the asswipes, the ass-kissers, and those that just will shit all over you.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old February 3rd, 2013, 11:31 PM
milanfanabhi's Avatar
milanfanabhi milanfanabhi is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: west coast of india
Posts: 4,822
milanfanabhi has a reputation beyond reputemilanfanabhi has a reputation beyond reputemilanfanabhi has a reputation beyond reputemilanfanabhi has a reputation beyond reputemilanfanabhi has a reputation beyond reputemilanfanabhi has a reputation beyond reputemilanfanabhi has a reputation beyond reputemilanfanabhi has a reputation beyond reputemilanfanabhi has a reputation beyond reputemilanfanabhi has a reputation beyond reputemilanfanabhi has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

godse was a victim of gandhis appeasement policy towards muslims and had lost his family during partition riots.

He avanged his familys death and gandhi was the attention seeking whore not godse.godse knew he was not going to live long after slaughtering gandhi.so what he would do with 15 days of fame? on the other hand gandhi wanted to live long and sodomise india with his bitch nehru,whose family is still fookin around...
__________________
cheteshwar pujara-ગુજરાતી માણસના પોતાના rahul dravid
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old February 4th, 2013, 04:46 AM
chaiwaala's Avatar
chaiwaala chaiwaala is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chennai
Posts: 1,332
chaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Digressing ... I think Gandhi and Nehru had different visions for what India should be. I think Gandhi wanted an India where there would be self-sufficient villages, pious people happily spinning khadi, people renouncing sex and pleasure, people living without much material wealth but spiritually contented. I think he had this ideal of happy, self-sufficient villages.

Nehru wanted industrialization and modernity. That comment you mentioned about dams being the temples of modern India ... I don't think Gandhi would have said that kinda thing. As long as the principal goal was independence, these differences did not come to the fore. But then again, if Gandhi had really wanted a republic full of self-sufficient villages, why did he choose Nehru as heir?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old February 4th, 2013, 07:47 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 chaiwaala View Post
Digressing ... I think Gandhi and Nehru had different visions for what India should be. I think Gandhi wanted an India where there would be self-sufficient villages, pious people happily spinning khadi, people renouncing sex and pleasure, people living without much material wealth but spiritually contented. I think he had this ideal of happy, self-sufficient villages.

Nehru wanted industrialization and modernity. That comment you mentioned about dams being the temples of modern India ... I don't think Gandhi would have said that kinda thing. As long as the principal goal was independence, these differences did not come to the fore. But then again, if Gandhi had really wanted a republic full of self-sufficient villages, why did he choose Nehru as heir?
I think Nehru chose himself. Gandhi was ready to choose even Jinnah in exchange for "no partition".
__________________
Only peace remains at last!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old February 4th, 2013, 08:19 AM
sgars's Avatar
sgars sgars is offline
2
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mid West
Posts: 6,825
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 milanfanabhi View Post
godse was a victim of gandhis appeasement policy towards muslims and had lost his family during partition riots.

He avanged his familys death and gandhi was the attention seeking whore not godse.godse knew he was not going to live long after slaughtering gandhi.so what he would do with 15 days of fame? on the other hand gandhi wanted to live long and sodomise india with his bitch nehru,whose family is still fookin around...
Except for Madanlal Pahwa, all in the gang were Brahmins from Pune. Now, what kind of riots were there in Pune? Madanlal Pahwa had suffered during partition riots. He was a 20 year old refugee to Delhi.
__________________
This is quite a game, politics. There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends,only permanent interests. - Some Firang
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old February 4th, 2013, 09:00 AM
Rakhi's Avatar
Rakhi Rakhi is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,702
Rakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceSeeker View Post
I think Nehru chose himself. Gandhi was ready to choose even Jinnah in exchange for "no partition".
It doesnt matter what Gandhi or Nehru wanted because by 1945 it was pretty evident that Muslim League was so powerful that there was no way Jinnah could be stopped. Even he was made the PM of India, it was only a matter of time before Nehru takes up him PM position.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old February 4th, 2013, 09:03 AM
chaiwaala's Avatar
chaiwaala chaiwaala is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chennai
Posts: 1,332
chaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceSeeker View Post
I think Nehru chose himself. Gandhi was ready to choose even Jinnah in exchange for "no partition".
Er, no. That can't be. I mean, Nehru can't choose himself. Gandhi's stature was unmatched then. He could have chosen anyone he liked as PM — Nehru, Patel, anyone else.

Anyways, I haven't really read any history books after what they forced me to read in school. So you'll be so kind as to excuse any mistakes.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old February 4th, 2013, 09:10 AM
Rakhi's Avatar
Rakhi Rakhi is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,702
Rakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaiwaala View Post
Er, no. That can't be. I mean, Nehru can't choose himself. Gandhi's stature was unmatched then. He could have chosen anyone he liked as PM Nehru, Patel, anyone else.

Anyways, I haven't really read any history books after what they forced me to read in school. So you'll be so kind as to excuse any mistakes.
I think Nehru was Gandhi's first choice from the beginning. What I dont understand is, Jinnah was the only one really powerful to force the partition. How come no one really knew how gravely ill Jinnah was and still went ahead with the partition (he ended up dying, what less than an year after partition?)?
makes me wonder, if Gandhi and Nehru actually did want partition.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old February 4th, 2013, 09:21 AM
chaiwaala's Avatar
chaiwaala chaiwaala is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chennai
Posts: 1,332
chaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakhi View Post
I think Nehru was Gandhi's first choice from the beginning. What I dont understand is, Jinnah was the only one really powerful to force the partition. How come no one really knew how gravely ill Jinnah was and still went ahead with the partition (he ended up dying, what less than an year after partition?)?
makes me wonder, if Gandhi and Nehru actually did want partition.
I thought they tried to prevent partition ... May be I'm wrong, but I have this impression that Jinnah or no Jinnah mistrust/tensions between Hindus and Muslims was so high at that time that partition was, you know, inevitable.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old February 4th, 2013, 09:47 AM
Rakhi's Avatar
Rakhi Rakhi is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,702
Rakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaiwaala View Post
I thought they tried to prevent partition ... May be I'm wrong, but I have this impression that Jinnah or no Jinnah mistrust/tensions between Hindus and Muslims was so high at that time that partition was, you know, inevitable.
Thats what I read too in several books. Everyone keeps saying that Congress was trying to keep the countries together. But something doesnt add up.

If Jinnah was truly terminally ill, how could he have hid the truth, that too close to independance? If he was dying and if Congress's aim was to keep the countries together, they would have bit the bullet (with the help of Mountbatten..?) and waited for him to die. Without Jinnah, there wasnt much of a Muslim league.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old February 4th, 2013, 10:28 AM
chaiwaala's Avatar
chaiwaala chaiwaala is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chennai
Posts: 1,332
chaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond reputechaiwaala has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Rakhi, what you're saying is that without Jinnah to lead the Muslim League, partition may not have happened. I can't comment on that, because I don't know. We need someone who is reasonably familiar with the politics of that era.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old February 4th, 2013, 10:41 AM
Rakhi's Avatar
Rakhi Rakhi is offline
Senior eCharchan
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,702
Rakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond reputeRakhi has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 30 January alternate view

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaiwaala View Post
Rakhi, what you're saying is that without Jinnah to lead the Muslim League, partition may not have happened. I can't comment on that, because I don't know. We need someone who is reasonably familiar with the politics of that era.
yes...I think without Jinnah, the partition may not have happened. Having said this, I think Gandhi and nehru wanted it too. Whether it is for selfish purposes like wanting only Nehru to be the first PM or did they actually foresee religious unrest if Hindus and Muslims stayed together is another topic altogether.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old February 4th, 2013, 03:10 PM
sgars's Avatar
sgars sgars is offline
2
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mid West
Posts: 6,825
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 Rakhi View Post
yes...I think without Jinnah, the partition may not have happened. Having said this, I think Gandhi and nehru wanted it too. Whether it is for selfish purposes like wanting only Nehru to be the first PM or did they actually foresee religious unrest if Hindus and Muslims stayed together is another topic altogether.
Agree about the Jinnah part. The earlier votaries of Parition, Iqbal and Rahmat Ali, just had some Ideas. It is Jinnah with his eloquence and leadership actually made it happen. He was earlier a nationalist and a secular who in fact opposed the Khilafat movement supported by Gandhiji. It was Gandhi and Nehru's ignoring him which caused him ego problems and then led him on to doing this favor to India (else imagine having Waziristan and all that stuff within India).

Gandhi and Nehru wanting it too. Proably Nehru wanted it else he would have been competing with Jinnah besides Patel. Gandhi was supposed to be deeply opposed to it, but then we never know.
__________________
This is quite a game, politics. There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends,only permanent interests. - Some Firang

Last edited by sgars; February 5th, 2013 at 08:32 AM. Reason: ignorance --> ignoring him
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old February 5th, 2013, 07:37 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 chaiwaala View Post
Er, no. That can't be. I mean, Nehru can't choose himself. Gandhi's stature was unmatched then. He could have chosen anyone he liked as PM Nehru, Patel, anyone else.

Anyways, I haven't really read any history books after what they forced me to read in school. So you'll be so kind as to excuse any mistakes.
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.
__________________
Only peace remains at last!
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 11:18 AM
View: This forum is not being used Counter-View: No dont close it echarcha View - Counter View 35 December 22nd, 2009 11:51 PM
Asteroid could hit Mars in January 2gud Taaza Khabar - Current news 0 December 21st, 2007 01:47 PM
26 January 1950: India becomes a republic Cooldude Indian Politics 2 January 26th, 2007 06:33 AM
Anyone in Mumbai after 22nd January 2001? echarcha Feedback 8 January 17th, 2001 02:31 PM


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


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