Why is the West so angry with Dr. Mahathir?

malyasia was successful not just because of muslims, it had a sizeable population of chineese and some people of indian origin. We respect mahathir, because he did not antagonise the chinese and the tamilians and still made way for ethnic malays to come up.
(unrelated but..) mahathir`s father was an indian muslim, from kerala!

sorry...abt the raja dahir part...i mixed up my history....he comes from an earlier time period..apologize for the mistake

so it seems...the gujjus are cowards....as a gujarati and a bania at that...i would like to clarify a few things about gujaratis in general and banias in particular
MYTH 1: gujaratis are vegetarian
Reality: loads of crap...minus the brahman bania upper castes and the wannabe upper-caste kanbis(patels) the rest including the rajputs , ahirs , lower castes and tribals are totally meat-eating...in population terms 70% of gujarat is non-vegetarian

MYTH 2: gujjus are all bania cowards....banias (jain , hindu and muslim) form 3-4% of gujarat , brahmins form close to 5% , rajputs 7% , the gujjar castes 13% ( includes various artisan , nomadic castes..for eg..the kathi (as in Kathiawad) rabri etc) these are the people who descend frm the central asian migrants who gave gujarat its name , patels form 12% , the muslims close to 8% and the rest are the ones who qualify for reservation.

MYTH3 : there are no gujaratis in the armed forces...
REALITY: totally incorrect , the fourth chief of the indian army was
General Maharaj K.S. Rajendrasinhji, DSO
C-in-C, 14 Jan 1953 - 31 March 1955
COAS, 01 April 1955 - 14 May 1955
Armoured Corps, 2 Lancers
a kathiawadi rajput
infact..when the modern day Grenadiers Regiment was formed ...most state forces of kutch and the kathiawad peninsula were megred into it...some of them were later merged into the mechanized infantry and the brigade of the guards.
Most of the BSF cadre in the kutch region of gujarat and mewar of rajasthan are kutchi and kathiawari rajputs...if anyone of you has relatives in the bsf...you can cross-check. as for the gujarati representation in the standing army...keshubhai patel gujarat`s former CM , mr. LK advani and the current CM narendra Modi have time and again demanded a seperate gujarat regiment...and a proposal to create one was in advanced stages during the BJP rule...though it was shot down by General VP malik saying that the army doesnt need any more regiments based on state or linguistic identities...and i totally agree with this...moreover most gujarati rajputs join the rajputana rifles and the rest join the grenadiers...so a seperate regiment is not required...imho
as far as kargil is concerned...there is a widespread myth on the net that no gujarati died in kargil...heres a link of the gujarati soldiers who died in kargil http://armedforces.nic.in/airforce/afkargil/arguj.htm
i believe we come fourth
and by the way...if you bufoons expect a mr. shah or a mr. mehta to join the army ....youre talking bull-shit...a majority of the soldiers who died in kargil are from the shekhawati region of rajasthan...aslo home to the many marwari bania castes...funny i dont find any agarwal or porwal or jain in the martyrs list...there is a score of martyrs from the cow-belt states...funny...i dont find a gupta amongst them....all this is for a simple reason the vanik or merchant castes of north india have been strictly vegetarian for the last millenium...the have never participated in any physical warfare...so its stupid to expect them to join the armed forces..atleast not the standing army....the same is true for the banias of gujarat.
and btw gujarat has a strong martial history:
the gurjar-pratihara clan which ruled gujarat in the middle ages controlled most of western and central india

When mohammed of ghor invaded gujarat to sack somnath...he was beaten many times ...finally when he did manage to sack somnath...it wasnt a cakewalk for him...his army sufffered serious losses and 100000 solanki rajputs perished defending somnath...i dont think this smacks of cowardice...(on his way back raja dahir of sindh(another supposed cowardly race) harrased him so much that he gave up the thought of invading india after that)

i can quote many such examples

Myth 4: gujaratis are communal cowards who kill unarmed muslim children and rape muslim women
REALITY:
since independence 5 major riots have taken place in gujarat the major one being the ahmedabad riots of 1969....each of these riots has been started by the muslims (the riot of 1969 was started when hindus were murdered in the jama masjid area of the walled city of ahmedabad
PS: the local muslims still call that part of the city ``bhadra``....as a grand temple to goddess bhadrakali the patron deity of the cities rajputs...was destroyed by the invading musalmans and converted into an ugly mosque( the so-called jama masjid)
the hindu response was as severe in 1969 as it was in 2002...what was lacking in 1969 was a media controlled by marxist bongs and semi-negroes from rajnikants domain...so i guess the ``intellectual`` discomfort with the riot was not much...well times change

i hope i have clarified a large portion of myths pertaining to gujaratis
if you have any questions pls do forward them,
Thanks,
Drupad Kanakia

``service is lowly and agriculture is noble...but only trade is profitable``
- an old Bania proverb

so it seems...the gujjus are cowards....as a gujarati and a bania at that...i would like to clarify a few things about gujaratis in general and banias in particular
MYTH 1: gujaratis are vegetarian
Reality: loads of crap...minus the brahman bania upper castes and the wannabe upper-caste kanbis(patels) the rest including the rajputs , ahirs , lower castes and tribals are totally meat-eating...in population terms 70% of gujarat is non-vegetarian

MYTH 2: gujjus are all bania cowards....banias (jain , hindu and muslim) form 3-4% of gujarat , brahmins form close to 5% , rajputs 7% , the gujjar castes 13% ( includes various artisan , nomadic castes..for eg..the kathi (as in Kathiawad) rabri etc) these are the people who descend frm the central asian migrants who gave gujarat its name , patels form 12% , the muslims close to 8% and the rest are the ones who qualify for reservation.

MYTH3 : there are no gujaratis in the armed forces...
REALITY: totally incorrect , the fourth chief of the indian army was
General Maharaj K.S. Rajendrasinhji, DSO
C-in-C, 14 Jan 1953 - 31 March 1955
COAS, 01 April 1955 - 14 May 1955
Armoured Corps, 2 Lancers
a kathiawadi rajput
infact..when the modern day Grenadiers Regiment was formed ...most state forces of kutch and the kathiawad peninsula were megred into it...some of them were later merged into the mechanized infantry and the brigade of the guards.
Most of the BSF cadre in the kutch region of gujarat and mewar of rajasthan are kutchi and kathiawari rajputs...if anyone of you has relatives in the bsf...you can cross-check. as for the gujarati representation in the standing army...keshubhai patel gujarat`s former CM , mr. LK advani and the current CM narendra Modi have time and again demanded a seperate gujarat regiment...and a proposal to create one was in advanced stages during the BJP rule...though it was shot down by General VP malik saying that the army doesnt need any more regiments based on state or linguistic identities...and i totally agree with this...moreover most gujarati rajputs join the rajputana rifles and the rest join the grenadiers...so a seperate regiment is not required...imho
as far as kargil is concerned...there is a widespread myth on the net that no gujarati died in kargil...heres a link of the gujarati soldiers who died in kargil http://armedforces.nic.in/airforce/afkargil/arguj.htm
i believe we come fourth
and by the way...if you bufoons expect a mr. shah or a mr. mehta to join the army ....youre talking bull-shit...a majority of the soldiers who died in kargil are from the shekhawati region of rajasthan...aslo home to the many marwari bania castes...funny i dont find any agarwal or porwal or jain in the martyrs list...there is a score of martyrs from the cow-belt states...funny...i dont find a gupta amongst them....all this is for a simple reason the vanik or merchant castes of north india have been strictly vegetarian for the last millenium...the have never participated in any physical warfare...so its stupid to expect them to join the armed forces..atleast not the standing army....the same is true for the banias of gujarat.
and btw gujarat has a strong martial history:
the gurjar-pratihara clan which ruled gujarat in the middle ages controlled most of western and central india

When mohammed of ghor invaded gujarat to sack somnath...he was beaten many times ...finally when he did manage to sack somnath...it wasnt a cakewalk for him...his army sufffered serious losses and 100000 solanki rajputs perished defending somnath...i dont think this smacks of cowardice...(on his way back raja dahir of sindh(another supposed cowardly race) harrased him so much that he gave up the thought of invading india after that)

i can quote many such examples

Myth 4: gujaratis are communal cowards who kill unarmed muslim children and rape muslim women
REALITY:
since independence 5 major riots have taken place in gujarat the major one being the ahmedabad riots of 1969....each of these riots has been started by the muslims (the riot of 1969 was started when hindus were murdered in the jama masjid area of the walled city of ahmedabad
PS: the local muslims still call that part of the city ``bhadra``....as a grand temple to goddess bhadrakali the patron deity of the cities rajputs...was destroyed by the invading musalmans and converted into an ugly mosque( the so-called jama masjid)
the hindu response was as severe in 1969 as it was in 2002...what was lacking in 1969 was a media controlled by marxist bongs and semi-negroes from rajnikants domain...so i guess the ``intellectual`` discomfort with the riot was not much...well times change

i hope i have clarified a large portion of myths pertaining to gujaratis
if you have any questions pls do forward them,
Thanks,
Drupad Kanakia

``service is lowly and agriculture is noble...but only trade is profitable``
- an old Bania proverb

The Chittagong Hill Tracts were awarded to Pakistan despite its non-Muslim majority on the basis that its economy was tied to the coastal plains to the west and there were no roads through the mountains to the east that would connect it to India.

The Pak claim to Gurdaspur is based on one telegram: a preliminary map of the partition of Punjab is supposed to have been sent out by Radcliffe and in that map Gurdaspur was shown to be awarded to Pakistan. It resulted in indefensible boundaries and hence the telegram which read ``Eliminate the salient``. The revised map of Punjab included Gurdaspur in India. This has led to all sorts of conspiracy theories including that Mountbatten already thought about Kashmir and had Gurdaspur awarded to India to provide a road link to Kashmir. Which conveniently forgets the fact that Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar to push back the tribal irregulars led by Pak Army officers.

Anything anybody writes about motives is completely speculative. Radcliffe himself never discussed the partition with anybody till his death.

Yaaaawn!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Gentlemen,
Might this map be of some relevance to your discussion:

?

Actually, this one might be more relevant, showing the Chittagong Hill Tract District:

Ref nakhok #211

[Pakistan`s regimes remember that Pakistan didn`t get Gurdaspur but very conveniently forgets that it got Chittagong Hill Tracts, Khulna and the city of Lahor.]

Equally conveniently, they forget that District Montgomery in West Punjab had an overwhelming Sikh majority but was awarded to Pakistan instead of to India.

#224 Urstruly

``If you look at the map, it was not physically possible to award chittgong (one with the port) to India at the time (or even Chittgong hill) because of the political unique situation of Tripura and Mizoram and the geographical compulsion that it imposed. ``

That is incorrect.

(1) There was absolutely nothing in the geography to preclude CHT`s inclusion in India. CHT had only a minuscule Muslim population. Furthermore, it was geographically contiguous with British India`s Assam which (apart from Sylhet) went to independent India.

(2) As for ``political unique situation``, while Tripura was a princely state, Mizoram (the Lushai Hills District as it was known in 1947) was a part of Assam in British India. Mizoram area came under British control in the 1870s. For the first few years after the British annexation, Lushai hills in the north remained under Assam while the southern half remained under Bengal. Both these parts were amalgamated in 1898 into one district called Lushai Hills District under the Chief Commissioner of Assam. With the implementation of the North-Eastern Reorganisation Act in 1972, Mizoram became a Union Territory and as a sequel to the signing of the historic memorandum of settlement between Government of India and the Mizo National Front in 1986, it was granted statehood on 20 February 1987.

#224 Urstruly

``Please dont switch your stance. In your original post you were referring only to Chittgong and not the Chtagong hill district citing the reason that Radcliffe awarded chittagong to Pakistan because it needed a port. If you look at the map, it was not physically possible to award chittgong (one with the port) to India at the time (or even Chittgong hill) because of the political unique situation of Tripura and Mizoram and the geographical compulsion that it imposed. ``

I stand by my statement. There is no need for me to switch stance. To recapitulate, this is what I had written, ``Radcliffe awarded CHT to Pakistan, on the grounds that Chittogong port needed a significant buffer of Pakistani territory between itself and Pakistan`s land boundary.``

Yes, Tripura was a princely state. Mizoram was not. In 1947, Mizoram was part of Assam in British India.

nakhokh

Please dont switch your stance. In your original post you were referring only to Chittgong and not the Chtagong hill district citing the reason that Radcliffe awarded chittagong to Pakistan because it needed a port. If you look at the map, it was not physically possible to award chittgong (one with the port) to India at the time (or even Chittgong hill) because of the political unique situation of Tripura and Mizoram and the geographical compulsion that it imposed.

Dost Mitter

But of coursewhat you would say would always be ``scholarly study``.

#218 by dost-mittar

``I am not knowledgeable enough about the the detailed geography and demographics wrt Khulna and Chittagong hill districts (Is Chittagong and Chittagong hill districts one and the same thing?)``

(1) Chittagong and Chittagong Hill Tracts are adjacent districts. Chittagong has a coast line - Chittagong Hill Tracts does not.

(2) Chittagong Hill Tracts has borders with two Indian states, namely, Tripura and Mizoram. Tripura was a princely state. Mizoram used to be part of Assam (which went to India) before it became a Union Territory.

(3) Khulna borders West Bengal. The Radcliffe Award was a little late in being made public. As a result, Khulna residents had actually raised the Indian flag on 15th August because they had expected Khulna to be in India by virtue of its Hindu majority. However, when the Radcliffe Award became public it was found to be in Pakistan. Radcliffe awarded it to Pakistan on the grounds that East pakistan needed extra coast line and a second port.

Urstruly:
Barkhurdaar, do I have to explain to you the difference between hearsay and a scholarly study?

Dost Mitter

You mean you were merely passing out hearsey?

Urstruly:
``but you are quick to throw judgements around``
I did not make any judgement. I simply made reference in my post#216 to a study by someone else (Pof. Datta).