Role of indian communists and 1962 war.

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra

well done sir!!!

you accuse me loudly (check the huge fonts and bolded part of your lines in the post) and when responded you follow up with this -



'safely ignoring' what i said to that very particular quote, which i repeat -



so what do you expect?? you can accuse anybody of "malicious intent" (even when that is untrue) just because you don't beleive in that and expect the other to just digest it without a squirm?? am i not supposed to defend myself?? are we in a communist state - where free speech is but a distant dream?? besides i am no gandhi follower either.

and then you say i keep harping on it when all i have done is to answer/counter your accusation!!! (3 posts in all including this). when i first saw that post i felt like 'reporting' it which i did not. if you had been graceful, you would have appreciated the answer and apologised for wrongly accusing. instead you are rubbing more salt into the wound.

PS : you are good poster and i myself (some months back) messaged you appreciating it - which you did not even bother answering. ofcourse i don't hold anything against that but i would expect a good poster to be 'balanced' and 'responsible' atleast wrt other posters in an open forum for the sake of civility and sanity.

i rest it here and hope it is not repeated again.

cheers.

@ppgj

I am sorry I don't agree that I was wrongly accusing you. I believe what I see. What I saw was that your quote was different from the original text in the Wikipedia link. I am sorry I don't see why I should apologise for stating something that I had see with my own eyes to be true, and the truth is your quote is indeed different from the text in Wikipedia, and you know that as well.

I hate to carry on like this but I think we need to clear the air and I want to let you know where I stand.
I still do not know whether the text was different a year ago. I still do not know whether the names of the people in your quote actually existed in the text. The evidence that we can see right now is that your quote is different from the original text in Wikipedia. Despite all that, I still want to believe you and trust that whatever you did, you did in good faith. That is why I gave you the benefit of doubt because I understand that the text in Wikipedia could have possibly been changed by somebody between when you first quoted it and now; and hoped to bury the hatchet.

My apologies for not answering your message.

Now I sincerely hope that we can put this behind us and move forward.

-Regards-

 

[LurkerBaba]

From how I see it, PRC, by virtue of its actions, has been hostile to India while USSR, by virtue of its actions, have been beneficial to India. So, it would be inappropriate to equate Communism with something that is inherently harmful to India and its people.

For PRC the correct term used by their state media is 'communism with Chinese characteristics'

 

[pmaitra]

For PRC the correct term used by their state media is 'communism with Chinese characteristics'

Yeah, and that is why they always try to claim territories from almost all of their neighbours, citing (1) treaties allegedly signed by the Imperial Dynasties of ancient China or (2) territories that were part of some Chinese Dynasty in the past. What it looks like at the moment is that, notwithstanding whatever PRC claims, they have always had an appetite for more and more territories at the expense of its neighbours. No wonder so many countries all around PRC feel threatened.

P.S.: This is just my opinion.

 

[ppgj]

@ppgj

I am sorry I don't agree that I was wrongly accusing you. I believe what I see. What I saw was that your quote was different from the original text in the Wikipedia link.

as to the bolded part check what you wrote in your post. it was a direct accusation in 'loud and clear' terms.

so you saw an article as per the link '1 year and 3 months later' and saw it has been edited and you surmised instantly that "i distorted" it and presented a wrong picture!!! what a show sir!!! least you could have done was a clarification you could have sought but no you would not do it. so a straight accusation on me with a charge of malafide and a malicious intention.

let me give an analogy.

lets assume that you build a house in your hometown and you work in a different city. after some months one of your friend on a visit to your hometown finds your house has collapsed and he holds 'you' responsible for the collapse!! what would you say to him?? if he follows your way of thought then he is right afterall!!!

must be sounding crazy right?? now tell me are you any different from that hypothetical friend vis-a-vis me??

I am sorry I don't see why I should apologise for stating something that I had see with my own eyes to be true, and the truth is your quote is indeed different from the text in Wikipedia, and you know that as well.

aha..mr. pmaitra, if you had been graceful you would apologised without being told. besides i don't even care your apology.

if some website edits/changes it's contents for whatever reasons, how come a poster who has nothing to do with it - is responsible?? if you are so interested to know who did it - why don't you take it up with wiki?? why are you charging me with malafide??

I hate to carry on like this but I think we need to clear the air and I want to let you know where I stand.

you started it sir. i am only defending myself from a personal attack by you.

I still do not know whether the text was different a year ago. I still do not know whether the names of the people in your quote actually existed in the text.

The evidence that we can see right now is that your quote is different from the original text in Wikipedia.

so you are back doing the same thing - CHARGING ME in a softer way. strangely let's see what you wrote in your post #12 -

From what I understand, the names of the politicians existed in the Wikipedia page (probably edited by some malafide source) but were removed due to lack of evidence by Wikipedia itself. I trust you quoted in good faith so I am not accusing you any further.

contrast that with what you are writting now. you are full of contradictions. clear that first.

when i last replied, i thought you would reflect and do a course correction. unfortunately you are rubbing the wrong way again. i am being forced to report which i am doing now.

Despite all that, I still want to believe you and trust that whatever you did, you did in good faith. That is why I gave you the benefit of doubt

again a contradiction!!! "despite all that" - as if you giving some concession!!! and who are you to give me - "the benefit of doubt??" am i fighting a court case and are you the presiding judge??

because I understand that the text in Wikipedia could have possibly been changed by somebody between when you first quoted it and now; and hoped to bury the hatchet.

why could you not think like this in the first place??

besides you still have doubts about it as your previous quotes reflect. i rested it in my last post hoping that you would not repeat again. i took a 'personal insult' in my stride and tried to counter you in a civilian way and hoped you would reflect. alas...you are not game for it.

My apologies for not answering your message.

Now I sincerely hope that we can put this behind us and move forward.

-Regards-

sir i did in my last post. you are the one who is incessantly rubbing me the wrong way.

 

[Yusuf]

Perhaps an exchange of PMs should do the trick.

 

[ppgj]

Perhaps an exchange of PMs should do the trick.

why sir?? follow the sequence and see for yourself who is at fault. still i did not report hoping that he will mend. but as you can see he is not sure of himself and keeps contradicting himself. who needs to be reprimanded?? inspite of a personal attack i have countered him with dignity for the sake of DFI but he does not stop. i don't even want an apology or anything.

and i would appreciate if these posts are not deleted. they need to be there for people to judge.

 

[pmaitra]

@PPGJ

This is regarding the alleged distortion of a paragraph from Wikipedia.

Evidence: Your quote is different from what is there in the link. This is proven.
Accusation: I accused you of distorting what is written in Wikipedia. This accusation is based on evidence mentioned above. I did not wrongly accuse you.
Your Defense: Wikipedia was changed since you quoted. Note, this is an unproven claim. Hence, I am not obligated to believe you and neither are you entitled to an apology.
Despite that: I took your word for it that Wikipedia could have changed since you quoted, although there is absolutely no evidence in your defense. I did it out of respect for a fellow member.

Now, I tried to move on without carrying this on further. You still seem to have this feeling that you are entitled to an apology from me. Sorry Sir, I categorically refuse to apologise, especially because as per the current evidence, you did indeed distort whatever is there in Wikipedia. So please get off the high horse quit demanding an apology from me. I owe you none. You owe us a favour though. You might want to go back to your quote and edit it out so that it reflects the original text in Wikipedia.

Also, I want to let you know that I am very close to withdrawing the benefit of doubt that I had offered you, because apparently you don't want to take this benefit of doubt. I am sorry, but you can thank your bellicose behaviour for that.

-Regards-

@MODs, I tried sending a PM to PPGJ, but his inbox is full. So I am placing this response here.

 

[S.A.T.A]

During the war, a faction of the Indian Communists backed the position of the Indian government, while other sections of the party claimed that it was a conflict between a socialist and a capitalist state, and thus took a pro-Chinese position. There were three factions in the party - "internationalists", "centrists", and "nationalists". Internationalists supported the Chinese stand whereas the nationalists backed India; centrists took a neutral view. Prominent leaders including S.A. Dange were in the nationalist faction. B. T. Ranadive, P. Sundarayya, P. C. Joshi, Basavapunnaiah, Jyoti Basu, and Harkishan Singh Surjeet were among those supported China. Ajoy Ghosh was the prominent person in the centrist faction. In general, most of Bengal Communist leaders supported China and most others supported India.[3] Hundreds of CPI leaders, accused of being pro-Chinese were imprisoned. Some of the nationalists were also imprisoned, as they used to express their opinion only in party forums, and CPI's official stand was pro-China. Thousands of Communists were detained without trial.[4] Those targeted by the state accused the pro-Soviet leadership of the CPI of conspiring with the Congress government to ensure their own hegemony over the control of the party.

Communist Party of India (Marxist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the passage PPgj quoted from wiki(from little over a year ago)

During the war, a fraction of the Indian Communists backed the position of the Indian government, while other sections of the party claimed that it was a conflict between a socialist and a capitalist state, and thus took a pro-Chinese position. There were three factions in the party - "internationalists", "centrists", and "nationalists". Internationalists supported the Chinese stand whereas the nationalists backed India; centrists took a neutral view. Prominent leaders including S.A. Dange were in the nationalist faction. B. T. Ranadive, P. Sundarayya, P. C. Joshi, Basavapunnaiah, Jyoti Basu, and Harkishan Singh Surjeet were among those supported China. Ajoy Ghosh was the prominent person in the centrist faction. In general, most of Bengal Communist leaders supported China and most others supported India. Hundreds of CPI leaders, accused of being pro-Chinese were imprisoned. Some of the nationalists were also imprisoned, as they used to express their opinion only in party forums, and CPI's official stand was pro-China. Thousands of Communists were detained without trial. Those targeted by the state accused the pro-Soviet leadership of the CPI of conspiring with the Congress government to ensure their own hegemony over the control of the party.

This is an excerpt from the website Marxists.org,both the passages appear similar,so prima facie PPGJ's contention that the wiki article originally had the passage in question and may have been subsequently appended, has some truth to it...

You guys should let it pass and move on.......

 

[pmaitra]

^^ S.A.T.A., see what I had stated in post #12. I did say that there is a possibility that those names did exist but Wikipedia removed the names of those people due to lack of evidence, and that is why I said I do not want to accuse ppgj any further.

 

[ppgj]

@DFI mods

i reported some of the accusations made by a member here and it seems he is not relenting and still continues in the same vein. i have been a member here since aug 2009. i can challenge any one to show me 'one' post where i have distorted any articles which i have linked here. neither have i used any unparliamentary words in any of my posts. i have always maintained civility, dignity while posting.

but it surprises me that a poster can accuse me of malafide and mischievous intention without any provoking, without any basis and with due clarifications and still can get away with it. this means that people like me have no place here as my integrity is under question. thank you for allowing me the space and time. it is a fine forum and i wish you all well.

@pmaitra, i have nothing more to say to you. i had never come across a person like you on the forum net. great you came across.

@SATA, thanks my friend.

 

[ppgj]

This is the passage PPgj quoted from wiki(from little over a year ago)


http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/c/o.htm
This is an excerpt from the website Marxists.org,both the passages appear similar,so prima facie PPGJ's contention that the wiki article originally had the passage in question and may have been subsequently appended, has some truth to it...

You guys should let it pass and move on.......

sata, it is not some truth. it is 'the truth'. it is a direct quote and i have not changed it at all. i quoted the text exactly as it existed.

thanks for your effort.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

you guys should let it pass and move on.......

x2....


...............................

 

[Abir]

China's chairman is our chairman - a common quote heard across Bengal in that period

That slogan was coined by Naxalites, not mainstream communists.