He is actually right on this one IMO. This is not his idea anyway. Shesh Rao More has written on it in detail in Marathi.
Post WW1, question of independence was settled. Whom to hand over power to - was the question.
Post WW1, question of independence was settled. Whom to hand over power to - was the question.
https://twitter.com/iMac_too/status/1372114242703290368
Gandhi’s role is to be acknowledged in this aspect. He made a case (like Jinnah) that secular Hindu dominated India was a contender just like a Muslim-nation case.
Islamic nation case is obvious and self evident for Xian British.
Hindus as one nation - Brits never understood
Islamic nation case is obvious and self evident for Xian British.
Hindus as one nation - Brits never understood
All important leaders post 1920 are in process of trying to prove to Brits that they are “nation”.
Nation as per Abrahamics is a self governable group of people with sense of belonging ness towards each other owing to some common features - language/race/religion/caste/something
Nation as per Abrahamics is a self governable group of people with sense of belonging ness towards each other owing to some common features - language/race/religion/caste/something
Even (electorally) small leaders like Ambedkar, Savarkar et al are in process of creating their case of a "Dalit" nation, or a "hindu" nation etc
This is exactly the answer to all the fools who parrot the line that Sangh did not participate in freedom struggle as an organization
This is exactly the answer to all the fools who parrot the line that Sangh did not participate in freedom struggle as an organization
The scenario had changed. Anyone fighting with British for "freedom" post WW1 were fools who didn't understand the changed circumstances
It was all abt roping as many "units" as possible to one's camp so that they emerge as prime contenders in the British last will and testament
It was all abt roping as many "units" as possible to one's camp so that they emerge as prime contenders in the British last will and testament
Among all Hindu leaders, Gandhi was most successful (with collusion, cooption with sections of Brits) in creating a huge block of Hindus (which he inherited from Lokmanya Tilak's lifetime of work along with Non-Abrahamic moneybags of Western coast).
British gave this chunk of land (which we today call modern India) to this block of Hindus which Gandhi was successful in marketing.
The Muslim chunk is by default always ever-ready since last 1400 years. They have all abrahamic political features inherently built in.
The Muslim chunk is by default always ever-ready since last 1400 years. They have all abrahamic political features inherently built in.
The biggest achievement of Gandhi, in my opinion, is Poona Pact with Ambedkar. He ingeniously aborted a very bad idea that was forming (Dalit nation) that Ambedkar was pushing.
With all his brilliance, this was a very bad idea of Ambedkar - separate electorates for Dalits.
With all his brilliance, this was a very bad idea of Ambedkar - separate electorates for Dalits.
Think of a bunch of children waiting for demise of their father & lobbying to be contender as father's successor & to get away with as big a chunk of property as they can manage after division
That is Gandhi in nutshell. Prodigal Eldest in of litter who screwed other contenders
That is Gandhi in nutshell. Prodigal Eldest in of litter who screwed other contenders
That is Gandhi, Jinnah, Ambedkar et al.
While Sangh et al ended up helping Gandhian camp in this endeavor, Sangh diametrically flies against the very core idea of India
That India is not a property to be divided - that she is a sacred geography to be worshipped and controlled.
While Sangh et al ended up helping Gandhian camp in this endeavor, Sangh diametrically flies against the very core idea of India
That India is not a property to be divided - that she is a sacred geography to be worshipped and controlled.
Hence it is very stupid (and yet politically correct) of Pappu to project India as a "negotiated nation-state"
He is stupid because that is not how Hindus look at India
Politically correct because that is how abrahamics view India and he has given up on Hindus as his voter-base
He is stupid because that is not how Hindus look at India
Politically correct because that is how abrahamics view India and he has given up on Hindus as his voter-base
Pappu is not competing with BJP anymore. Pappu has given up on Hindus. He is very smart in that way.
He is competing with Ovaisi and other parties relying on minority and "sekoolar" vote.
He is emerging as the true contender for non-Hindu vote.
He is competing with Ovaisi and other parties relying on minority and "sekoolar" vote.
He is emerging as the true contender for non-Hindu vote.
Remember the slogan of anti CAA fellows from last year -
"सबका खून शामिल है इस मिट्टी मे, किसीके बाप का हिन्दुस्थान थोड़े ही है"
This is their clear-cut attempt of staking a "negotiating claim" on "property that is India". This is what Jinnah did 100 years ago.
"सबका खून शामिल है इस मिट्टी मे, किसीके बाप का हिन्दुस्थान थोड़े ही है"
This is their clear-cut attempt of staking a "negotiating claim" on "property that is India". This is what Jinnah did 100 years ago.
Our misfortune is, instead of some overt PIF like in 1745-1760 or 2014-2030, a negotiator Gandhi was spearheading the transition from our side in the decade of 1930-1946.
https://twitter.com/Kal_Chiron/status/1372018830390665216
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
