Nehru’s Legacy: Time to pay tribute

Manto mian,

(Yes. Because of the number game... )

Bengalis were a majority in undivided Pakistan and yet were unable to protect themselves in 1970-71 nor was the democratic mandate of 1970 respected. So what would have been the fate of Hindus/Sikhs who amounted to maybe 25% of West Pak`s population.

Regards

Re: # 80

This where I find Indian amnesia most endearing.

Omar Saeed Shaikh and his accomplices who killed Daniel Pearl were arrested in April-May 2002 and have been in jail (I believe one of them is on death row) for 4 years now.

So I am not sure what this whole- Staines murderers are behind bars crap is supposed to prove. It seems to be the run of the mill answer.

Indian: Danny Pearl Danny Pearl Danny Pearl

YLH: You guys burnt Staines and his family alive because they were christians/non-Hindus

Indian: So what- they are behind bars. Are Danny Pearl`s murderers behind bars?

YLH: Yes they are ... what the f.

Monto...the way i see it and the way everyone else sees it, you just keep whining for the faults of your great leader maj. just because he wasn`t smart enough to get land for pakistan, why are you blaming the indian leaders for it.

and even if nehru had a threesome (which i hope he enjoyed very much), you still can`t deny the fact that his street smartness and diplomacy got india more land and resources and gave the leftovers to jinnah to mop up.

and dude.....since you can`t counter facts, you have as usual tried to do everything but counter facts.

i have seen one thing for sure, when ever you get caught with your pants down, you either try to change topics or try to abuse the other person or simply never show up!!!!

and dude...poverty stricken shithole....doesn`t the same apply for your land of pure too. don`t get back to me with per capita figures, the difference is marginal and you guys will be behind us in that in the next 1 or 2 years. plus those figures are doubtful with different agencies coming up with different figures.

and incase your paki taxi driving cousins in arab lands have not informed you, no one gets citizenship in those countries except for people who meet certain criteria.

BASICALLY YOU ARE A COUNTRY OF WHINERS WHO LIVE ON HANDOUTS. BLUDY BHIKARIS.

rgds,

devkant.

Manto mian,

I am not saying that the people who have been responsible for killing Pearl have not not brought to book. It is just that with a military govt which is not very transparent you cannot be too sure.

Regards

Re: # 81

I have already answered this question... but must be the usual amnesia. The issue in Bangladesh was never of majority but of Bengali identity... in any event, we are assuming that Bengal would be an independent United country- had the mass murderer Nehru not gotten his way.

As for Pakistan... its army would have constituted as many Sikhs as Muslims and Jinnah had offered an autonomous Sikh region as well as the defence ministry to the Sikhs. It goes without saying that it is too much to assume that we would have martial law definitely.

Dev,

(and even if nehru had a threesome (which i hope he enjoyed very much))

You can rest assure all of them did. Or at least Lord and Lady M did. If they gave whatever JLN wanted, they must have been very happy with his services.

Regards

Reassessing Nehru: Free India From His Evil Legacy
Sauvik Chakraverti

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

It is very easy to prove that the great Jawaharlal Nehru, our first prime minister, who founded a democratic dynasty that still lives on, was an evil man. My logic is based on the writings of Frederic Bastiat.

Let us begin by looking at the difference between good and evil. Man is born into a difficult existence. To survive in this life he has to get a lot of things from the world around him: roti, kapda, makaan. There are but two ways of getting these (if we omit beggary): by working hard in the market economy, earning one’s honest living, and buying what one needs from the market. The second is by theft, by plunder, by stealing from others. The question Bastiat posed is: Which is good and which is evil? Which should we encourage and which should we seek to stifle? My reader will readily answer that the first is good, and people should be encouraged to work towards fulfilling their own needs; further, that the desire to live off others is evil and plunder should be stifled.

In which case, let us now take a close look at the Nehruvian legacy: What did this socialist dynasty encourage? It will be instantaneously obvious to anyone who remembers those hard socialist times that this dynasty stifled enterprise and promoted plunder. Nehru put in place what Rajaji called the ‘licence-permit-quota raj’: he fettered enterprise in every possible way so babus could plunder entrepreneurs. He encouraged bright young people to join his public enterprises, which were funded by looting the taxpayer. His daughter even went on a nationalising spree, the effects of which are still with us. In her heydays, the only jobs available were under the state. Young people were not encouraged towards enterprise; they were encouraged to join the state and plunder the people.

Gradually, as the socialist drama unfolded, it mingled with democracy to create a scenario of universal plunder. Every section of society, be it economic, social, religious or linguistic, was issued its own share of the spoils — something free or cheap at someone else’s cost. Or a job under a quota. Or some land plundered off someone else. Even the law was made to side with this plunder, and the property rights of the citizen were no longer guaranteed by the Constitution. What else is this but universal plunder?

The history books tell us that Nehru fought for freedom. But are Indians free today? We are ranked 122 in the World Economic Freedom Index. We are still, after 10 years of this voodoo liberalisation, an economically repressed nation. Our natural ability to trade, to ‘truck, barter and exchange’ — a gift which every Indian child is blessed with in abundance — is still not allowed to flourish, and free trade is still a distant dream. Currency controls, trade res-trictions, high tariffs and continued licensing hinder our ability to generate wealth for ourselves. And they encourage a ‘rent-seeking society’ which the personnel of the state, under the Nehruvian system, have become.

Indians are phenomenal traders: in London, the capital of a country once known as ‘a nation of shopkeepers’, Indians own all the corner shops. There is an Asian pop band in England called Cornershop. One joke about Indians goes: Why can’t Indians play soccer? Because every time they get a corner, they put a shop on it! Legend has it that a Bania can buy from a Jew and sell to a Scot and still emerge with a profit! We are the world’s best traders, but we are not free to trade because of a worthless bunch of ‘industrialists’ whom Nehru encouraged to plunder their consumers. And so it was that great evils engulfed the land.

To rid the country of these evils, there is no alternative but the formation of a liberal political party. Only liberalism can offer us an escape from this socialist plunder, now under a fascist dispensation. Only liberals believe in the free market — that all the people should be left free to earn wealth and the state should have a minimal role. Only governance under such principles can lead India back to her age-old prosperity.

Getting there is impossible today because the Representation of Peoples Act proscribes the formation of parties that are not socialist. So the Shiv Sena is OK, but we liberals are not! Indians must realise that this democracy is not a true one if communists, socialists and Hindutva types are free to compete and liberals are not. And the Mumbai high court must immediately respond to a public interest litigation on this issue by the Indian Liberal Group which it has been sitting on for over five years: What are libe-rals expected to do if they cannot participate in elections? Take to armed insurrection?

Having proved that this socialism is evil, and this democracy is false, let me conclude by informing my fellow citizens that it is far more important to have a free market than it is to have the vote. The market is where economic achievements are made. I cannot open a beer bar in my basement, but I can vote. What good is that vote to me? Tribals in central India can vote, but cannot sell their lovely drink, mahua. What good is democracy without the market? Democracy without free markets is meaningless. Illiberal democracy, we Indians must now realise, is a very bad system of government.

The country is in a horrible state. Corruption rules the roost everywhere. Every city is dying. Every town is decrepit. Evil ideologies hold sway. Will India’s liberals stand up and be counted?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/17770.cms

Devkant wrote:

{the way i see it and the way everyone else sees it, you just keep whining for the faults of your great leader maj. just because he wasn`t smart enough to get land for pakistan, why are you blaming the indian leaders for it.

and even if nehru had a threesome (which i hope he enjoyed very much), you still can`t deny the fact that his street smartness and diplomacy got india more land and resources and gave the leftovers to jinnah to mop up. }

On the contrary.... it was blood thirstiness and hunger for power and land that mass murderer Nehru exhibited that got you all this and more. Jinnah was honest and scrupulous and it is true that it did not help us, but atleast we got what we got fair and square... that is all I wanted to hear. Good that you accept that you are as a nation a disgusting lot without any scruples or morals.

All I can tell you is that Pakistan does not have any Jinnahs anymore... and we will do whatever we can to screw your country in its rear every chance we get.

Ref aisha_sarwari #66

[7. Having threesomes with ``Dickie`` and his wife]

Don`t diss it if you haven`t tried it.

Manto mian,

(The issue in Bangladesh was never of majority but of Bengali identity... )

Yes, but if Pak authorities thought it fit to suppress Bong identity thru use of force, what would have prevented them from doing the same when Hindus and Sikhs asserted their identity.

(As for Pakistan... its army would have constituted as many Sikhs as Muslims and Jinnah had offered an autonomous Sikh region as well as the defence ministry to the Sikhs. )

So why did Sikhs refuse MAJ`s offer.

Anyway in support of your views, let me add that some Indian commentators (Mani Shankar Aiyar, NC Chaudhari) too have expressed views that had Pakistan been formed with undivided Bengal and Punjab things would have turned out differently that Pak would have been a secular, democracy not very diff from India. However, personally I am not convinced that Hindus/Sikhs would have had a fair deal in undivided Pak. Let`s politely agree to disagree on this. But would appreciate if you have some other links/references on this subject.

Regards

#86 by majumdar on January 4, 2007 3:54am PT

forget all three of them, the whole of india is enjoying the fruits of that threesome.

the only ones cribbing are the pakistanis who got the leftovers to cleanup. the fact is that the indians got it their way in 47 and the pakistanis got it their way in 72 when ZAB managed to trick IG to get the captured land and the prisoners in exchange for a false promise to recognise the LOC as the intl border between india and pakistan.

but the pakistanis will always think that ZAB was a great diplomat, and not a liar.

rgds,

devkant.

Manto mian,

(Pakistan does not have any Jinnahs anymore...)

Which is a pity.

( and we will do whatever we can to screw your country in its rear every chance we get. )

You already have. Unfortunately it has created only more problems for your country. India can survive the jehad in J&K but can Pak survive the virus that it has reactivated in your country. The price that Pak pays for jehad may be well greater than what India would have to pay.

Regards

PS: I use the word reactivate not ``introduce`` bcos you would insist that that honour belongs to MKG.

``#88 by Mantolives on January 4, 2007 3:59am PT
All I can tell you is that Pakistan does not have any Jinnahs anymore... and we will do whatever we can to screw your country in its rear every chance we get. ``

ha ha ha dude....so you wanna screw us????? u guys tried in every way and failed in all those ways. keep trying....but just ensure to keep your back sides covered....i just hope that no one screws you guys when you drop your guards to screw us!!!!

rgds,

devkant.

Yes ZAB`s ``false promise`` on LOC if made is exactly the same as the actions of mass murder Nehru in bed with Mountbattens which resulted in unprecedented loss of human life.

In any event, I assure you that this time around we will follow Nehru`s bloodthirstiness and machiavellian values when dealing with your shit hole of a country.

``Anyway in support of your views, let me add that some Indian commentators (Mani Shankar Aiyar, NC Chaudhari) too have expressed views that had Pakistan been formed with undivided Bengal and Punjab things would have turned out differently that Pak would have been a secular, democracy not very diff from India. However, personally I am not convinced that Hindus/Sikhs would have had a fair deal in undivided Pak. Let`s politely agree to disagree on this. But would appreciate if you have some other links/references on this subject. ``


I personally have no reason to disagree with Nirad Chaudhry. This is more over a view that is almost universally accepted by academics.

At the very least, Hindus and Sikhs would be as prosperous as they are now ... without the bloodshed and violence unleashed by mass murderer Nehru on all communities.

Manto mian,

Coming back to the issue of bengal and Punjab. Had India allowed that to happen, India would have lost (apart from J&K), the whole of undivided Punjab (Punjab, Haryana, HP), WB and the whole of NE India in territorial terms almost 600, 000 sq km or 1/5th of India. No Indian leader would ever have allowed that to happen be it MKG, JLN, SVP, BRA, Rajaji or whoever else. When the decision to partition India was taken, Punjab and Bengal`s fate as undivided province was sealed. So if you have an animus against partition of the provinces you would have to blame Indians/Hindus as a whole rather than just MKG or JLN.

Have you wondered why the Hindu representatives in the Bengal assembly voted for the partition of Bengal post 1947.

Regards