@Raajajii@sarkar_swati@maidros78 Lets start taking the clay off the straw of idols. I can assure that no idols will be left. We can do it one by one. I have asked for examples of the "pure" and unsullied. Yet to get any. No problem, when we finish, no unsullied will be left.
@Raajajii@sarkar_swati@maidros78 The original Bharatendu Harischandra is supposed to have been inspired by Bengal "Renaissance". By the braying standards I am seeing online, all of that renaissance wd be cancelled by woke puritans if it happened now.
@Raajajii@sarkar_swati@maidros78 I dont like spending time on ppl who selectively quote, highlight and suppress to protect their idols and try and discredit those they hate. I do strive and call for "unity", which makes me usually try and avoid responding to such asinine provocations.
@Raajajii@sarkar_swati@maidros78 But I can sense this aggression is driven by a different political and sectarian agenda - indicated by the careful suppression of the record of the "impure" collective of that era, and picking out one and then run a journo style "making a story of choice" of life, and narrative.
@Raajajii@sarkar_swati@maidros78 My coauthors have already brought out an extensive rebuttal of Bharatendu's namesakes claims before. So instead of repeating that I will see to it that we also highlight what "others" did, and how much of a pure, "uncompromising", "intractable" their lives were.
@Raajajii@sarkar_swati@maidros78 My loyalties are to the common Hindu, and I have always clearly stated, that I feel no obligation to help "trustees" be it on bloodlines or holy anointment claims, to feel superior and rule over the hoi polloi. They have done enough damages. Lets clear it all out. Start afresh.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Was INA "bad" as seen as "jihadi"? Maj.Gen. V.K.Singh (retd) "Ironically, the soldiers who joined the [INA] led by [SCB] were treated as heroes, even though they not only joined the enemy but also fought against their compatriots who were wearing the uniforms of the Indian Army."
Maj gen Singh feels it is "ironic"& appears not to recognize that his language makes "Bose led INA" and perhaps by implication, also, Japan as "enemy". Here obviously he doesnt recognize that "Japan" was enemy of the British, and an enemy of British doesnt have to be of Indians.
Let's look at what comes through Def secretary, in '67 who is not contradicted by the COAS - but who adds a different reason, and makes a strange comparison which in itself is revealing - in the referral note on occasion of the handover of SCB's sword:
1) "A Hindu leader" is a disturbingly inaccurate phrase, even if seemingly innocuous. The definition of a "Hindu" has long been contested, and replacing it with "Sanatani" doesnt really solve the issues in that contest, in some sense making it even more contested.
2) Some will say, helping out an invader with explicit agenda of destruction of what it deems as "Hindu", in ways that adds to the resources of that invader to do what it wants to do - culturally, militarily, economically, religious infrastructure, still keeps one a "Hindu" if
3) if after helping out the invader, the "helper" builds temples, publicly and privately observes approved rituals, feeds the poor, does a lot of charity. Or that the "helper " at least protected his own "Hindu" clan, territory even if helping the invader persecute other Hindus.
@unequal_power I had a long running exchange on Twitter where I pointed out that exactly same criteria he uses to “infer” Boses alleged islamophilia wd apply to SPM and Savarkar. I asked him why he never brought up that side of his idol. He had deleted his tweets as I found out yesterday.
@unequal_power Sarvesh carefully ignores the writings or communications of Bose that problematises his thesis, he never ever highlights the acts/statements of SPM/Savarkar in HMS that shows their continuing “blindness” by his own standards. I find it rather insidious and not insightful.
@unequal_power At the end of the day, his statement was he “infers” abt Boses “motivation” - which of course he doesn’t repeat for his idol. He has to infer because he can’t show Bose showed the fundamental criteria to identify a mullah “ally”:
All those unhappy with Bose, pretending to be Indian, Hindu, self appointed "experts on India", or else, shd realize all that Indians felt cheated of by Gandhians - they added as hopes on Bose. He has grown with time out of a nation's hopes. Its an enemy impossible to bring down.
Those who think they are the only "true Hindus" (and the rest are illegitimate flotsam who dont share the true's bloodlines) and Bose a "lesser Hindu", can try to think why Bose remains so popular without state agitprop to generations of flotsam who never saw him or heard him, .
Those who filled newsprint with Bose being dubbed Tojo's pet, or the left+right "western" experts concerned about India's mental health on Bose turning India the next Nazi base, shd think why in spite of all that agitprop, Indians neither believe it nor do they stop adoring Bose.
Indians at the receiving end of thug British rule never had any ambivalence on Subhas not being a British at heart, didn't see the world through British eyes or interests. Only diehard imperialists who fret on having lost their jewel in the crown will see danger in Bose's statue.
McDonald's panic is understandable: for pseudo-progressives closet-imperialists, "decolonisation" of cultures like India must not uproot the networks of influence, left behind in colonies that allows the ex-colonial to try and manipulate the ex-colonized to its own advantage.
McDonald's two very Brit concerns are amusingly revealing and wd have done a Churchill honour, Nehru was the good "British" guy, whose one fault was appearing for INA undertrials: well he had no option, if he and INC wanted to retain any political legitimacy in people's eyes.
On a lighter view on the retirement, in light of CA debates, '49 on how "old men" wr the most sagacious/mature/foresighted: Had Nehru retired at 60, he wd hv done the CA, but not confirmed Tibet to CPC or gone to Bandung lobbying for Maoist China, and not be there in '62.
Had MK Gandhi retired at 60, he wd have started the career of Jawarlal, but that would be it. I think it would be an interesting exercise for alt hist buffs to fill out the scenarios.
The point is that there can be serious skewering of course for a nation and ppl if individuals persist in power who get fixated on apparatus of personal power, and in turn get fixed in applying tools s/he initially succeeded with - but that no longer is the best for the ppl.