Independence Thinker

#63 Posted by bulleya on August 19, 2007 7:45:20 am

Nehru gave India the IITs...kinda

According to manto, g-man gave pakistan it's IITs(Institutes of Islamic Terrorism) and the lal masjid...

drlokraj: Thanks for the clarification - which indeed reinforces the important truth that in order to have a productive discussion and/or line of thought, one should focus on issues rather than personalities.

Thus, we have the situation here of three blind men (drlokraj, tahmed, and kaalchakra) and the elephant (gandhi):
drlokraj "sees" gandhi as the representation of Ram Raj (a hindu theological state, which he does not elaborate further though);
tahmed "sees" gandhi as the representaton of non-violence;
kaalchakra too "sees" gandhi to be the representation of Ram Raj (which he elaborates to be some form of a society driven by caste wars).

no doubt other blind men could pictch in: hamidm "sees" gandhi has the representation of the "half-naked fakir"; ylh sees gandhi "sees" gandhi somewhat the same as kaalchakra.

My plea: let gandhi's bones (or ashes or whatever) rest in peace whereever they are. just like we should let all other personalities who are no longer around to defend themselves on chowk rest in peace.

Focus on the issues!! and say "God bless" to the personalities and realize that like us, they too were humans - struggling with this uniquely human condition of being an animal that has come a long way but is still not there yet.

Mr. Ahmed/ Dr. Lok Raj,

Rama Rajya is NOT a Hindu THEOLOGICAL state. Pl desist from perpetuating the faslehoods.

folio: what is it then? (this is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one)

Folio, tahmed32 sahib, I am NOT kidding. drlokraj knows quite a bit more about Gandhi's ram rajya. Some google experts might dig out his prior postings where he elaborated along the lines I suggested. Or, if he is in a generous mood, he might explain again.
------------------------


drlokraj # 64 :)

Folio, I am not sure if that is all Gandhi meant. I suspect he had a deeper, hidden (or not so hidden) agenda, including full, regular flogging of sudras, enslavement of Muslims, and elimination of women from India, except his nieces (for obvious reasons).

Ask drlokraj. He has much more details than anybody imagined as real.

-----------------

About damrymple (Jesus, that is a weird name, is it not?), don't forget, the fellow imagines himself to be a Mughal of sorts, only latter era.

Actually, if you read some old books written by white men with relation to India, they ALL have a Mughal deeply embedded in their mental genes. That is the only natural world for them - a point I tried to explain to a lady with nick beginning with S* but ....

Kaala Chakra,

U are as smart as hamid in black humour (abt Ganhi's neices).

Kaal: my point in #66 remains - lets us not talk of gandhi (and simply wish, like all others no longer with us, the best), but focus on the concepts. That spares us endless discussions on what is essentially a no-brainer:

ram raj: i am all ears here, but at this point simply see it is the hindu equivalent of a theological state (i.e. where priests rule, and people obey).

non-violence: a vital concept in today's world, when mankind's future is in jeopardy given the mismatch between his emotional development and technological prowess.

what gandhi thought on these two is no longer important since gandhi is not running for any elections in future.

so, unless enlightened further by folio or drlokraj, i assume that my understanding of ram raj is basically that provided by kaal. and for reasons I think the muslim equivalent promoted by urstruly and co would be a step backward for Pakistan (with zia having already done some damage to Pakistan by introducing hadood laws etc. and empowering and funding the muslim priesthood) - i.e. a state ruled by priests is a state that slips back into more primitive times when mankind was more like animals.

Re: # 50

Once again Masadi... as I said... Little knowledge is very dangerous.

1. Wearing western clothes doesn't make one a lackey ... wearing the dress of the Hindu peasant doesn't make one a freedom fighter.

2. The legislation I produced was just one of the many efforts Jinnah made and succeeded at which in real terms helped lessen the exploitation of Indians by the British. I suggest you pick up a good book on Jinnah.

3. You really haven't read the Independence of India Act 1947 ... Dominions of Pakistan and India were constitutionally unique because they could become republics by the act of their own constituent assemblies. In other words Pakistan and India were dominions only because there was no other legal alternative till the adoption of independent constitutions.

4. And while Jinnah told Mountbatten to go to hell on the issue of retaining him as GG of Pakistan and it was Jinnah who chose his cabinet ... Gandhi's followers not only retained Mountbatten as the first viceroy of independent India but also gave him a blank piece of paper to decide the cabinet.

5. One of the fiercest issues that came up early on during discussion on the transfer of power was that Jinnah insisted that King George should not be allowed to sign his name George R I (Rex/Regina Imperator/Imperatrix) on the documents pertaining to Pakistan... ultimately Jinnah prevailed and Mountbatten thoroughly abuses Jinnah for suggesting this.

6. One of the things Jinnah was abused by the British was that he refused to sign on legislation as "representative of the King" but signed on as the "President of the constituent Assembly". This ofcourse violated the convention of dominion government.. but Jinnah the constitutional lawyer held that Pakistan's dominion government was like Eire only in form.

7. Jinnah became the Governor General of Pakistan because the majority party in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly i.e Muslim League put up his name... just like Congress begged Mountbatten. Thus by that logic.. Jinnah was elected as any Prime Minister. Here too he was abused by the British press for politicising the office of the governor general.

8. Gandhi's role as the recruiter for the British Empire is well known. History will expose the truth of Gandhi and whether he was actually a British plant to control the Independence Movement. You ought to read HP's post very carefuly.

ylh: While not wishing to take your attention away from the augean task of educating masadi, I have a question on Jinnah: Do you ever wish Jinnah had set a precedent by refusing to run for office once he had achieved the formation of Pakistan. Musharraf and BB and Nawaz Sharif (all of them shamelessly clamouring for office even after having served longer than prime ministers and presidents do in more mature democracies? could then have been shamd by providing them the example of Jinnah.

Now, the most obvious example I can provide is George Washington (who walked away from offers by Congress of continuing as President, and instead walked away to tend to his farm saying that he did not wish to set a bad precedent). And no doubt this will make me a US lackey in Masadi's eyes. :-(

Mr. Ahmed,

Where did u get this definition of Rama Rajya??

The folklore abt this phrase is abt ppl having good lives, no disturbances (i.e peaceful society), era of no hunger and reegn of virtues. Where did u find Hindu theology here? I dont know who perpetuated this myth but the reign of King Rama is the rein of all good things one can expect. It's mostly an oral tradition to equate Rama Rajya with good/virtuous society.

For a theological state u shud have Brahmins acting as Kings (eg. Parasurama, Pushyamitra Sunga OR Gupta emperors who implemented the agenda of Brahminical order and that is when the idol worship came into Hindu religion when Guptas started constructing temples).

Again it's half-truths abt Brahmins. If some Brahmins were acting as Ministers in the courts of Kings/emperors some were philosophsing abt life and some were busy seeking nirvana in Himalayas by chanting the name(s) of God(s) i.e the ppl who forsake this world/society, family lives.

In any case there's nothing called Hindu religion in those days what's there to start a Hindu theocratic state?

Again how can Gandhi talk abt Hindu theocratic state when he's constantly surrounded by Badshah Khan, Azad and Ali Brothers whilst Jinnah was badmouthing Gandhi abt Hindu Raj from a distance?

U can still pretend to be deaf abt this (in order to prop up Manto monkey).

Anyway King Rama himsekf is not a priest how come his kingdom is a priestly reign?

#73 Posted by MantoLives on August 19, 2007 8:43:11 am

What happend to jinnah's most radical step: his law for the use of the rupee? Did it pass?

Folio, tahmed32

It's patently unfair for two really intelligent and good people to argue over this. The task of explaining ram rajya should be/can be left SOLELY to drlokraj.

After all, it is no ordianry concept. Unambiguously, explained as Hindu sharia, it was among the more important factors leading to the inability of Hindus and Muslims to live together, to huge amounts of violence, (and the loss of millions of lives).

drlokraj and his allies played the key role in explaining ram rajya then, and only they can enlighten us again now.

drlokraj, the board is yours, please :)

kaal

Dude - take a break... you are spending way too much time in chowk and it shows - step back and get some perspective and objectivity...

Folio #75 so, in short, your answer to my question concerning what you mean by ram raj is as follows: "The folklore abt this phrase is abt ppl having good lives, no disturbances (i.e peaceful society), era of no hunger and reegn of virtues.

That is a goal no one will argue against.

Does your concept of ram raj stop here, or does it then proceed to provide the means? from the rest of your post, it seems you have some kind of an idealized version of a distant past, but again - am all ears to your response to this next question.

Thanks. Gotto go to an evil chinese restaurant now to meet some evil fellow pakis, but will be back to see your response. :-)