Mahadev Gobind Ranade (1842-1901)

Amit #110
Are you serious? You really believe that ``Gandhi was in charge of the entire freedom movement in India`` and that`s why you are blaming him!
And kindly explain
``Everyone in pre-partition India knew that hindus and muslims had to find an equitable constitutional solution for the communal question involving 25% of the population. What concrete steps did Gandhi take to address this? Did he stop Nehru from rejecting coalition with the league in the thirties? Did he try to work with Stafford Cripps? Did he stop Nehru from scuttling Cabinet Mission Plan? ``
What is an equitable constitutional solution? Why is that solution not required for a 2% minority? And what if minority is 0.002%?
Do tell us what step you would have liked Gandhi to take. And also do elaborate on the plans that Nehru rejected.

Re:friend#113

Gandhi was the defacto leader if not the dejure leader of the Congress Party. So, yes, he was in charge of leading the freedom movement.

Pre-partition India had 25% muslim population. We all know that as communities, hindus and muslims are not assimilated with each other i.e. we do not have roti-beti ka rishta. In addition, hindus did have historical grudge against muslim invaders although the Indian muslims were primarily all converts from hinduism. On top of all this, the economy of pre-partition India was terrible with the only economic opportunity being government jobs, since India could not even produce a needle at that time.

In this environment, is it too outlandish to think that muslims would demand some constitutional guarantees of their status after partition? Today India is a secular, democratic society with a booming economy. Who could predict that prior to 1947? A lot of colonies at that time degenerated into dictatorships, civil wars etc. We have seen the example of South Africa where the rights of the minority white community is specially protected in their constitution. Even in India, Gandhi worked out a solution with Ambedkar about the scheduled castes. However, when it came to muslims, there was strange silence and no interest in any kind of a working solution to their apprehensions about the future. They could have been given proportional representation in all branches of government and military, as well as veto power against constitutional amendments related to muslims. That would have given them a secure share of power in a united India. In return, hindus could have secured proportional representation for hindus in all branches of government in muslim majority provinces like Punjab and Sindh.

# 112 mohar11

``Partition was good and partition worked. Islamic freaks on one side - secular people on the other side. Perfect arrangment - if only the bloodshed were avoided. ``

And India was awarded few districts of Sindh

rsridhar #105, #107

It’s generally not a good idea to directly interact with HydroPhobic specimens. You might contract their rabies yourself – already your language has taken a sharp turn for the worse!

FWIW, Farzana had an article nearly three years ago (a month after the Gujarat riots) claiming that Gandhi was the spiritual progenitor of L K Advani. It was provocative and tendentious as many of Farzana’s articles are; it met with applause from the usual crowd of Jinnah-worshippers and outrage from many Indians. I had commented in an interact there on Gandhi’s early complaints in South Africa about how the “colonial government sought to bring down Indians to the level of `black kaffirs`”, and noted that the man continue to learn, grow and develop throughout his life. It is amusing to skim through the old interacts; IMO most of the familiar interactors there have grown much less than Gandhi did in South Africa!

Amit,
There is no comparison between dalit reservation and hindu-muslim issue. Dalits were given representation not for their numbers, but for the historical wrongs committed on them. No such thing in the case of hindu-muslim issue, if anything hindus could claim that they were the historically aggrieved party.

# 114 amit

``In return, hindus could have secured proportional representation for hindus in all branches of government in muslim majority provinces like Punjab and Sindh. ``

Amit,

Why did not muslims or Muslim League come up with this idea and approach Congress
or Hindus for proportional representation?
For a responsible majority, should not minority also be responsible? It is not a
one way street.

mohar11 #112,
Agreed with you. I am just stunned that there are people here who believe that appeasement would work. Actually it never does, it only leads to more demands.

Re: # 96

The only one crapping here is your Mohar11... you couldn`t come up with a single answer ...

Re: # 98

Thank you...

I suggested the book by Raj Mohan Gandhi a long time ago... it is a fascinating read.

Re: # 120 manto

Single answer to what? ..... In fact - I was expecting you to comment something on absence of reform movement among in pre-independence muslims.

Re: # 106

The religion was imposed by Gandhi... who short cut the secular muslim leadership and promoted the likes of Maulana Muhammad Ali, Azad, Dr. Ansari etc...

Let me remind you what that meant.... all of the gentlemen that Gandhi promoted over the secular Muslim leadership.... were bigoted Mullahs... and Islamists responsible for the ``Hijrat Movement`` in the 1920s.... which is even today a joke ... for those who read history.

Ladies and gentlemen...

I could have responded to each idiotic and stupid post put up here... but I see that Indians as whole have gone totally beserk after I refused to be cowed down by their logic... Ofcourse some reasonable people have differed from the general tenor but this has been the situation by and large

Let us look at the facts for once....

Mohar11 has gone crazy jumping up and down about ``communal freaks`` and ``Islamic freaks``.... but it is the great irony that all of the rabidly Islamist bigots including Majlis-e-Ahrar were part of the Congress Party alliance against the Muslim league...

The Muslim disciples of Gandhi in particular... let us consider their positions .... the positions they took as allies of Gandhi...

1) Maulana Azad: The great follower of Gandhi. Gave the call for the ``Hijrat Movement`` because ``India was darulHarb`` because it was the land of Kufaar. The purpose of the Hijrat Movement was that Indian Muslims would move to Afghanistan and strengthen that country and then ask the Afghan King to attack India and make it part of the great Islamic Kingdo

2)Maulana Muhammad Ali He said openly that though Gandhi was a saint ... any Musalman is better than any non-Muslim at any given time.

3)Dr Ansari This idiot approached Kemal Ataturk trying to persuade him to become the Caliph of Islam.

Now these were the kind of people that were let loose upon the Muslims by Gandhiji...

It is clear to me that most Indians on this board suffer from a disease... which makes them incapable of looking beyond their noses... this article is no way an endorsement of any Indian position, nor is it in anyway a shift from my stance. My stance is based on logic and facts of history.... as long as it stands on that .... it is unshakeable.

And please... try not to give weird logic like ``Jinnah was an elitist because he didn`t clean his toilet``.... I have already explained why that entire stream of thought is illogical stupid and intellectually bankrupt.

amit #114
``So, yes, he was in charge of leading the freedom movement. ``
And as a leader, he was responsible for Noakhali! Even though whatever happened was aganist his directives and he immediately withdrew the agitation!

Dear sir, when you start talking about pre-partiton 25% muslim population and its need for constitutional guarantees, why is guarantee of fundamental rights not enough. And do you mean that 25% muslim population is a homogeneous mixture. Even now muslims can not agree on who is and who is not a muslim. That so called special guarantee was for which 25% section of muslims. Why not a special status for Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Jainis, Budhhists, Aborginals, and Hare Krishna!
Yes I do believe that it is outlandish for anyone to ``demand some constitutional guarantees of their status``. only thing one should expect is an equal opportunity and an equal opportunity to ask for remedy.

I could have responded to each idiotic and stupid post put up here... but I see that Indians as whole have gone totally beserk after I refused to be cowed down by their Lack of logic... Ofcourse some reasonable people have differed from the general tenor but this has been the situation by and large

Let us look at the facts for once....

Mohar11 has gone crazy jumping up and down about ``communal freaks`` and ``Islamic freaks``.... but it is the great irony that all of the rabidly Islamist bigots including Majlis-e-Ahrar were part of the Congress Party alliance against the Muslim league... ... the Muslim Leaguers were mostly the kind who maintained close ties with Hindus ... had family friendships, ana jaana milna milana... the kind that sided with the Congress were rabid Hindu haters...

The Muslim disciples of Gandhi in particular... let us consider their positions .... the positions they took as allies of Gandhi...

1) Maulana Azad: The great follower of Gandhi. Gave the call for the ``Hijrat Movement`` because ``India was darulHarb`` because it was the land of Kufaar. The purpose of the Hijrat Movement was that Indian Muslims would move to Afghanistan and strengthen that country and then ask the Afghan King to attack India and make it part of the great Islamic Kingdo

2)Maulana Muhammad Ali He said openly that though Gandhi was a saint ... any Musalman is better than any non-Muslim at any given time.

3)Dr Ansari This idiot approached Kemal Ataturk trying to persuade him to become the Caliph of Islam.

Now these were the kind of people that were let loose upon the Muslims by Gandhiji...

It is clear to me that most Indians on this board suffer from a disease... which makes them incapable of looking beyond their noses... this article is no way an endorsement of any Indian position, nor is it in anyway a shift from my stance. My stance is based on logic and facts of history.... as long as it stands on that .... it is unshakeable.

And please... try not to give weird logic like ``Jinnah was an elitist because he didn`t clean his toilet``.... I have already explained why that entire stream of thought is illogical stupid and intellectually bankrupt.

Re: # 109

I can assure... that I didnot put up any comparison with Gandhi...

Mohar11 started this crap... by putting up nonsense about Gandhi and some great political movement.... which is great for a film script... but does not gel with the facts.

To me Gandhi is irrelevant... heck... it is increasingly clear that he is irrelevant to most Indians as well... which is why India is progressing....

If I were an INDIAN ... I would be thanking God for Ambedkar who quashed the nonsense about ``Indian village republics``, and ``Ram Rajya``.... etc....

be honest .... who would you invite for dinner ?




......... i rest my case