Pakistan demands equal access to Australian uranium after sales to India

[Galaxy]

If The right wing had succeeded in the 1934 attempt the 1947 would not have been possible.

They were always successful right from 16th century. 1947 partition was good for us and not bad but we failed to take any advantage thanks to Congress government and Of Course, Blunder of Nathuram. Otherwise things would not be the same.

1948-1980's was bad phase due to few mistake. I mentioned one point. Post 80's, things improved. Yes, it lost almost 4-5 decades due to unintentionally mistake.

It's very long story, Won't be sufficient for this thread

 

[Param]

They realized this after arming Pakistan and pointing 600 IRBM's at Delhi from Tibet.

Bad for us.

 

[pack leader]

what the hypocrites in the west and the UN forget to tell you about the NPT is that the big 5 are bound to dismantle their existing nuclear weapons as part off the agreement since not one off them ever made any effort to renounce their existing nukes
their hypocrite asses have no right to criticize Israel or India that never made the commitment to begin with

 

[Param]

They were always successful. 1947 partition was good for us but we didn't took any advantage thanks to Congress government and Of Course, Blunder of Nathuram. Otherwise things would not be same.

But 1948-1980's was bad phase due to few mistake. 1 mentioned. Post 80's, things improved. Yes, it lost almost 4-5 decades due to unintentionally mistake.

I am not taking about partition but Independence.

If the 1934 attempt had succeeded INC might have split. There would have not been a single popular mass leader of Gandhi's stature. The freedom struggle would have been bogged down by infighting.

Netaji came close in levels of popularity among the youth but Gandhi was in a totally different league in matters of popularity and stature. Besides I doubt whether Netaji would have recieved enough support from other prominent INC members.

 

[Galaxy]

I am not taking about partition but Independence.

If the 1934 attempt had succeeded INC might have split. There would have not been a single popular mass leader of Gandhi's stature. The freedom struggle would have been bogged down by infighting.

Netaji came close in levels of popularity among the youth but Gandhi was in a totally different league in matters of popularity and stature. Besides I doubt whether Netaji would have recieved enough support from other prominent INC members.

Many were popular, But they did not reached the destination. Few were hanged, few were killed and few disappeared. Netaji was certainly one of them.

We didn't got independence because of Non-Violence movement, But British left themselves due to bankruptcy post WW2. Don't be mistaken. Well, We would have got independence long back, If many freedom fighter with different ideology fought together. But I think, Congress and Gandhiji didn't wanted others to take credit.

 

[Param]

Many were popular, But they did not reached the destination. Few were hanged, few were killed and few disappeared. Netaji was certainly one of them.

We didn't got independence because of Non-Violence movement, But British left themselves due to bankruptcy post WW2. Don't be mistaken. Well, We would have got independence long back, If many people fought together. But I think, Congress and Gandhiji didn't wanted them to take credit.

If Churchill had been around instead of Atlee, bancruptcy would not have mattered.

Independece was a combination of weak British position post WW2 + Quit India movement. The final straw was the armed forces resentment against the Brits.

 

[Galaxy]

If Churchill had been around instead of Atlee, bancruptcy would not have mattered.

Independece was a combination of weak British position post WW2 + Quit India movement. The final straw was the armed forces resentment against the Brits.

All other reasons were always there for many decades. But due to Bankruptcy of U.K. economy, They were forced to leave. It was most important reason. They even decided to leave in just 3 months after announcement due to which religious violence errupted in Punjab. Indeed, They left many countries in 40's and 50's including India.

As i said, we would be Independent few decades before, If All Nationalist leaders including Leftist and Rightist fought united against British but Congress wanted to take all credit.

If we had united forces, There would not be any Invasion/colonies, I suppose.

"If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no work for tinkers".

 

[The Messiah]

bhagat singh and all were leftists

 

[Galaxy]

bhagat singh and all were leftists

Yes, Bhagat Singh was leftist.

Netaji, Lal-Bal-Pal to Savarkar all opposite.

Congress was mainly Hindu party in 40's opposite to Muslim League.

Hindu nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After Late 40's Congress mistake or better i say Blunder, Some Hindus who were almost 90% in modern India at that time, Went with Hindu mahaSabha........and so on.

 

[Param]

All other reasons were always there for many decades. But due to Bankruptcy of U.K. economy, They were forced to leave India. It was most important reason. They even decided to leave in just 3 months due to which religious violence errupted in Punjab. Indeed, They left many countries in 40's and 50's including India.

As i said, we would be Independence few decades before, If All Nationalist leaders including Leftist and Rightist fought united against British but Congress wanted to take all credit.

If we had united forces, There would not be any Invasion/colonies, I suppose.

"If ifs and ands were pots and pans there'd be no work for tinkers".

Churchill was in no mood to give independence.It is said he was even ready for war.

All the Brits had to do was to use the divide and rule policy in addition to direct military force.
The only thing that could have stood in Britains way would have been the army but then the Brits could have easily created infighting by favouring some ethnicities over others.
If they had given into Periyar's Dravida nadu demand there is nothing the rest of the country could have done.

They could have easily split the country and separated some provinces just like they separated Burma in 1935.

I am not a fan of Cong but the fact is Gandhi was the single most famous and popular mass leader across the country from north to South, east to west He was the only superstar of the freedom movement.

 

[Param]

Yes, Bhagat Singh was leftist.

Netaji, Lal-Bal-Pal to Savarkar all opposite.

Congress was mainly Hindu party in 40's opposite to Muslim League.

Hindu nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After Late 40's mistake, Some Hindus who were almost 90% in modern India, Went with Hindu mahaSabha........and so on.

Dude INC is a very important reason why the south is part of India.

Bhagat Singh, lala-bal-pal, savarkar etc were not as famous or influential in the south. Have you heard of the Justice party that came to power in Madras province? Periyar was in justice party before creating DK.

I hate to say this but INC was the only pan national party with plenty of influence and support across almost all regions. INC provided a platform for all the nationalist forces from all over the country to unite against the common enemy_ the brits.

 

[Galaxy]

Churchill was in no mood to give independence.It is said he was even ready for war.

All the Brits had to do was to use the divide and rule policy in addition to direct military force.
The only thing that could have stood in Britains way would have been the army but then the Brits could have easily created infighting by favouring some ethnicities over others.
If they had given into Periyar's Dravida nadu demand there is nothing the rest of the country could have done.

They could have easily split the country and separated some provinces just like they separated Burma in 1935.

I am not a fan of Cong but the fact is Gandhi was the single most famous and popular mass leader across the country from north to South, east to west He was the only superstar of the freedom movement.

I agree with few of your points.

Do you know why GandhiJi was biggest leader ? Because all Big Leftist-Rightist Freedom fighter were killed/hanged. I don't know because of some arrangement between Congress & British, or just co-incident ?

As far as Congress, There was no other noticeable political party. Few small parties were squeezed by Congress. Also, Congress become Flag bearer of Hindus in 40's after ML become flag bearer of Muslims.Then, Assassination of Gandhiji and Hindu MahaSabha was termed as Right-wing Hindu party. It was mistake by Nathuram.

India would be India due to common religion. Till 16th century, There was no concept of any country.

 

[The Messiah]

Yes, Bhagat Singh was leftist.

Netaji, Lal-Bal-Pal to Savarkar all opposite.

Congress was mainly Hindu party in 40's opposite to Muslim League.

Hindu nationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After Late 40's Congress mistake or better i say Blunder, Some Hindus who were almost 90% in modern India at that time, Went with Hindu mahaSabha........and so on.

Im not sure you can label netaji as hindu nationalist as we understand the term now. he didn't believe in India only for hindus and in azad hind there were muslim commanders fighting under same banner. yes he took inspiration for freedom from hindu texts but so did gandhi.

 

[Galaxy]

Dude INC is a very important reason why the south is part of India.

Bhagat Singh, lala-bal-pal, savarkar etc were not as famous or influential in the south. Have you heard of the Justice party that came to power in Madras province? Periyar was in justice party before creating DK.

I hate to say this but INC was the only pan national party with plenty of influence and support across almost all regions. INC provided a platform for all the nationalist forces from all over the country to unite against the common enemy_ the brits.

South would be always part of India in any case with or without Congress.

Regions plays very important role in unity of the country.

 

[Param]

I agree with few of your points.

Do you know why GandhiJi was biggest leader ? Because all Big Leftist-Rightist Freedom fighter were killed/hanged. I don't know because of some arrangement between Congress & British, or just co-incident ?

As far as Congress, There was no other noticeable political party. Few small parties were squeezed by Congress. Also, Congress become Flag bearer of Hindus in 40's after ML become flag bearer of Muslims.Then, Assassination of Gandhiji and Hindu MahaSabha was termed as Right-wing Hindu party. It was mistake by Nathuram.

India would be India due to common religion. Till 16th century, There was no concept of any country.

So we diid not have a common religion before 16th century.

PS: the first concept of nation in the subcontinent came about in the late 19th century not 16th. If you are referring to Maratha empire, it was an empire ruled by a dynasty based in the konkan region not a nation state in the current sense of the term.

 

[Galaxy]

Im not sure you can label netaji as hindu nationalist as we understand the term now. he didn't believe in India only for hindus and in azad hind there were muslim commanders fighting under same banner. yes he took inspiration for freedom from hindu texts but so did gandhi.

I am great admirer of Azad. Due to some of his early initiative, Our IT sector is hitting new high today.

As far as Boss is concerned, Pre-47 era, The foundation of division already started. Hindus nationalism == Modern India, as Muslims went with Muslim League. Yes, 30% Muslims stayed in India, But then 25% Hindus also stayed in Pak/BD. Majority only reflects movement.

 

[Galaxy]

So we diid not have a common religion before 16th century.

PS: the first concept of nation in the subcontinent came about in the late 19th century not 16th. If you are referring to Maratha empire, it was an empire ruled by a dynasty based in the konkan region not a nation state in the current sense of the term.

There was no country in Medieval or Ancient era. So, it's not important. What really important is once the concept of Country came into existence. Even There was nothing called China.

If you want to go in past, Then Chandragupta Maurya around 2500 years back. South was part of whole India or better i say most part of South India

 

[Param]

South would be always part of India in any case with or without Congress.

Regions plays very important role in unity of the country.

I think you are not aware of the caste composition of INC in the early 20th century and its relevance to the pan national level freedom movement.

Without congress no North Indian party could have had much influence in the Madras province. There is a high probability that a Justice party & DK alliance would have been dominant.

 

[Galaxy]

I think you are not aware of the caste composition of INC in the early 20th century and its relevance to the pan national level freedom movement.

Without congress no North Indian party could not have had much influence in the Madras province. There is a high probability that a Justice party & DK alliance would have been dominant.

The situation century back was not like today.

There was nothing called North India or South India. Do you believe in Aryan Invasion BS crap ?? :shocked:

India was always ONE with different ethnic, languages, scriptures, rituals. Since, The concept of country was not there, So various Kingdom/Dynasty. Hence, the difference.

As it was said in Ancient times, From Himalaya to Indian Ocean - Bharatvarsh.

 

[The Messiah]

I am great admirer of Azad. Due to some of his early initiative, Our IT sector is hitting new high today.

As far as Boss is concerned, Pre-47 era, The foundation of division already started. Hindus nationalism == Modern India, as Muslims went with Muslim League. Yes, 30% Muslims stayed in India, But then 25% Hindus also stayed in Pak/BD. Majority only reflects movement.

Bose would have never allowed partition and never wanted it....he wanted united India.

He once said that he would shake hands with the devil to get freedom for India and went to germany and japan only after he couldn't get much help from russia. In all intents and purposes he was a socialist but not to the level that bhagat singh was. He has said in his speeches that after independece India requires societ style authorotarian socialism.

In 1929, Bose raised a demand for "full socialism", and came close to Bhagat Singh's socialist organisation Hindustan Republication Army. Addressing the Midnapore Youth Conference in 1929, he said: ""¦A new society has to be established on basis of full socialism. Economic disparity is to be removed and everybody, man and woman, is to be given equal opportunity for education and advancement in life. We must see that a sovereign state is established on a socialist basis."

He reiterated his preference for socialism in 1930 in his letter to the revolutionary leader, Barindra Kumar Ghosh (younger brother of Shri Aurobindo). "...We do not want political freedom alone. We want freedom from all bondage. Our freedom struggle is meant to break all the three kinds of bondage - political, economic and social. Only then will a free and classless society based on socialism be established. The establishment of a classless society is the main objective of our freedom struggle."

For Subhas Chandra Bose, socialism was not a foreign ideology. He believed that Indian socialism was rooted in ancient India and in the Indian renaissance of the 19th century. In his presidential address to the Rangpur Political Conference (March 30, 1929) he said: ""¦This socialism does not derive its birth from the books of Karl Marx. It has its origin in the thought and culture of India"¦We have to shape our society and politics according to our own ideals and according to our need."

Addressing the Maharashtra Political Conference (May 3, 1928), Bose observed: "Communism is not a western institution. Among the Khasis of Assam...private property as an institution does not exit even in theory. "¦.I am sure that similar instances can still be found in other parts of India and also in the history of the country."

In his presidential address to the All-India Naojawan Bharat Shabha, (Karachi, March 1931), he said: ""¦I want to see the establishment of a Socialist Republic in India". Observing that political emancipation should go hand-in-hand with economic freedom, he said: "...Right to work and sufficient wages for sustenance must be ensured for all. There will be no place in society for the idle and everybody must enjoy equal opportunity. Above all, distribution of wealth and income must be equal and just for all. Hence, it is imperative that the state must be responsible for production as well as distribution."

Bose refined his concept of socialism further in his address to the Mathura session of the United Provinces Branch of the Naojawan Bharat Sabha, (May 1931): ""¦The basis of our collective social life will be justice, equality, freedom, discipline and love"¦. These five principles constitute the essence of socialism, which I wish to see established in India. (Marxist) socialism, when applied in India, will give birth to a new kind of socialism, which is to be christened as 'Indian socialism'. It is not possible to ignore national environment and character, socio-economic conditions...We must assimilate the knowledge and experience of others by assessing them in the light of our needs and national character."

In his presidential address to the All-India Trade Union Congress in Calcutta, (July 1931), Bose said: ""¦I have no doubt in my mind that the salvation of India, as of the world, depends on socialism. India should learn from and profit by the experience of other nations - but India should be able to evolve her own methods in keeping with her own needs and her own environment. "¦India should evolve her own form of socialism. It may be that the form of socialism which India will evolve will have something new and original about it, which benefit the whole world".

In his speech at the Third Indian Political Conference held in London in June 1933, Bose said: ""¦Free India shall not be a country of capitalists, hoarders and of any particular community. Free India shall be a socially and politically democratic country."

Hailing the birth of the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) in 1934, Bose said that socialism was not an "immediate problem" for the Indian people. Nevertheless "socialist propaganda could be conducted only by a party like the Congress Socialist Party", which stands for and believes in socialism. Though Bose was not a member of the CSP, he had openly said that he had been "in agreement with its general principles and policy from the very beginning".

It is to be noted that the CSP had made it clear that its programme was based on Marxian socialism and the word 'Congress' was prefixed to 'Socialist' to signify the organic ties of that organisation with the national movement.

Hindustantimes.com - the name India trusts for news