a country which needs to project power doesnot need to prove anything to anyone. Look at USA, Israel, look at Russia. They literally destroy their enemies by attacking directly into enemy or with a covert operation. India has chosen the path of proving a terrorist a terrorist. better to concentrate on Elemination rather than proving. why dont India kill their enemy by doing operation even if it meant to strike inside Pakistan. our enemy should fear our army especially terrorists who walk freely on Pakistani Soil....
This shows UNSC is a toothless body which does not carry any weight in such matters. Many years back when US overruled UNSC's decision during invasion of Iraq. UNSC could not restrain North Korea and could not resolve many Global issues. It would be wise to tackle this issue locally.
which has been trying rather very hard for some time to *lift* Vallabhai patel from the Congress party pantheon, has not and will not stand any talk about what Patels stance was regarding the *acquisition* of the princely state of Kashmir by India !
Patel was instrumental in persuading more than 400 erstwhile princely states of british India to accede to the Indian union.
He went by the spirit of the british drafted Instrument of accession act, which was for the kings of those states to accede to either India or Pakistan based on the will of the majority of their subjects. And given the commxunally charged atmosphere prevailing in the light of the division of India, that will went overwhelmingly by the religious identity of the majority of those subjects.
Only 2 states bucked this trend, namely, Junagarh and Kashmir. Junagarh had a hyndu majority population and a muxlim king. Kashmir had a muxlim majority population and a hyndu king.
Patel was focused on annexing Junagarh, whose nawab signed the instrument for acceding to Pakistan. He sent the Indian army and made the nawab flee and then annexed Junagarh.
But the Sardar, who was in contact with more than 400 princely states in this matter, did not write even one letter to the Raja of Kashmir ! Not only that, he is reported to have advised Nehru against trying to make Kashmir a part of India when the latter planned to send the Indian army there to make the raja sign on to accede to India.
Re: The BJP,
by RAJKUMAR on Nov 13, 2017 10:34 AM
Mr Piri, kindly check in detail your facts about Nehruji's role in kashmir accession,his feud with then king of kashmir wrt release of Sheikh Abdulla from prison of king, for more than 2 years resulting in delay of accession to India. Kindly do not falsely malign Patelji . thanks
Read reports about what Patels response was about Kashmirs accession to India in 1947.
He was not interested in Kashmir acceding to India simply because it had a muxlim majority population.
Similarly, he overruled the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan by its king and used the Indian army to make him flee only because Junagadh had a hyndu majority population.
While he wrote several letters persuading the rajas and ranis of every princely state that had a hyndu majority population to accede to India, he did not write a single letter to the Kashmir raja.
This is recorded in the voluminous documents and letters stored in the national archives, Delhi.
The effort to make Kashmir accede to India was a big mis-adventure. And only one man was responsible for that - Jawaharlal Nehru ! He allowed his emotional bond to his native state to over power his sense of reasoning.
And India continues to suffer heavy adverse consequences for that to this day !
Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by rajarshi banerjee on Nov 13, 2017 11:41 AM
The accession of the then princely state of Kashmir was being handled by Nehru alone as he had specifically made a plea that he will handle this matter. Thats the reason why Sardar kept himself out of this. Infact when Nehru messed up big time, Sardar had asked Nehru permission to tryon his behalf for the present POK part which he was denied by Nehru. Nehru handled only one state's accession to India whereas Sardar managed to get 557 states to be precise amalgamate to Indian union. He had to threaten the Nizam of Hyderabad too who wanted to accede to Pakistan.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by piri on Nov 13, 2017 12:09 PM
Sardar wanted to try his hand at occupying POK only in 1949 (when Nehru wanted to take the issue to the UN), not in 1947 !
In 1947, he not only did not make any attempt to make Kashmir accede to India but also advised Nehru against trying to do so !
This much is recorded in the National archives !
What is your source of information that Nehru made a specific plea to Sardar that he will handle Kashmir (implying that Sardar would have otherwise done so) ?
The national archives ?
Is there any correspondence between them that is available that proves this ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by rajarshi banerjee on Nov 13, 2017 12:24 PM
What is recorded in the national archives may not always be the gospel truth. There are a lot things that the Nehru Gandhi dynasty has permanently erased from records to keep their own record blemish free as far as possible.
Kashmir state was always a problematic state right since the 1920s, so there was no easy way out. Kashmir's accession happened much later because in 1947 Kashmir did not want to join either country. It was only when the tribals attacked J&K in 1948 & the battle went on for 8 months nearly that Maharaja Hari Singh wanted to accede to India. The discussion between Sardar & Nehru happened pre indepedance where in Nehru had specifically insisted on handling J&K himself. That later he found it too hot to handle & took it to UN is a different matter. I have my own sources which have these verified, I cannot disclose them for obvious reasons. It is upto you to believe or not to believe. You are entitled to your opinion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by piri on Nov 13, 2017 01:19 PM
I will tell you why you cant disclose the source for what you describe as information.
It is because there is no such source which proves your wishful thinking !
So, it is what the national archives (which include the entire range of letters written by Sardar and Nehru in the matter of accession of princely states to India and Pakistan) say against your wishful thinking !
And you argue that the national archives do not have the gospek truth whike your wishful thinking is the gospel truth !
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by rajarshi banerjee on Nov 13, 2017 01:45 PM
You can keep ranting about national archives as much as you want. You are entitled to believe what you feel suits you. I am not forcing you to believe my wishful truth as you would like to call it but I don't believe your economical selective facts either. There could be entire rnage of letters in the national archives that does not change the facts for me. I have full confidence in my sources so kindly don't impose your opinion on me as you are right & I am wrong. I am not saying either that you are wrong & I am right.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by piri on Nov 13, 2017 12:38 PM
Read in detail before writing about anything, you ignoramus.
The Nizam did not opt to join Pak. He wanted to retain Hyderabad as an independent country (to perpetuate his rule and keep possession of the immense wealth he and his predecessors looted from ordinary subjects).
The Raja of Travancore - Chittira tirunal Bala Rama Varma - also wanted to retain his kingdom as an independent country. And his motive was also the same as that of the Nizam if Hyderabad - perpetuation of his rule and retention of the immense wealth he and his predecessors robbed from ordinary subjects. It is primarily this wealth that lies in the Sri Padmanabha swamy temple in Trivandrum.
And the Sardar persuaded 557 princely states to accede to India ?
Are you sure that number is correct ?
So, you mean to say that no princely state in British India (which covered the entire sub continent) acceded to Pakistan ?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by rajarshi banerjee on Nov 13, 2017 01:15 PM
There were 565 princely states in the subcontinet of which about 550 states acceded to Indian Union. Since you are so knowlegeable & instead of arguing on facts you want to do name calling, first get your own facts right. The Nizam very much wanted to join Pak thats exactly why he refused to join the Indian Union & wanted to keep it independant as a pretext.
As I said you can keep forcing your opinions as facts down else's throats, they don't change. If calling me ignoramus makes you happy sure be happy, I don't want to lose my patience arguing with someone who does not know how to have a civil debate.
Re: The BJP,
by Pijush Singha on Nov 13, 2017 10:58 AM
You write with less information in your bank so is harmful. When patelji was looking after 400 states as you tell the Kashmir king's issue was dealt exclusively by Nehruji. Everybody tried but not all are equally competent.
Re: The BJP,
by aam admi on Nov 13, 2017 11:03 AM
FIRST STUDY PROPERLY AND THEN COMMENT , HALF KNOWLEDGE IS DANGEROUS. SARDAR PATEL ANNEXED AROUND 600 STATES NOT 400 AS STATED BY YOU AND SO MORE.
which has been trying rather very hard for some time to *lift* Vallabhai patel from the Congress party pantheon, has not and will not stand any talk about what Patels stance was regarding the *acquisition* of the princely state of Kashmir by India !
Patel was instrumental in persuading more than 400 erstwhile princely states of british India to accede to the Indian union.
He went by the spirit of the british drafted Instrument of accession act, which was for the kings of those states to accede to either India or Pakistan based on the will of the majority of their subjects. And given the commxunally charged atmosphere prevailing in the light of the division of India, that will went overwhelmingly by the religious identity of the majority of those subjects.
Only 2 states bucked this trend, namely, Junagarh and Kashmir. Junagarh had a hyndu majority population and a muxlim king. Kashmir had a muxlim majority population and a hyndu king.
Patel was focused on annexing Junagarh, whose nawab signed the instrument for acceding to Pakistan. He sent the Indian army and made the nawab flee and then annexed Junagarh.
But the Sardar, who was in contact with more than 400 princely states in this matter, did not write even one letter to the Raja of Kashmir ! Not only that, he is reported to have advised Nehru against trying to make Kashmir a part of India when the latter planned to send the Indian army there to make the raja sign on to accede to India.
Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by piri on Nov 13, 2017 11:13 AM
Of course !
But only if he earns such respect !
Respect cannot be ordered. It must be earned !
And a man who is so openly prejudiced and so arrogantly disposed as to come to Kerala and expect to sway voters there by saying loud in public that the state is similar to Somalia (when Kerala is actually the leading state in India in every index of human development) can expect little respect from most of the people there !
Re: Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by rajarshi banerjee on Nov 13, 2017 11:44 AM
The other truth about Kerala is also that close to 6000 people have been converted by either coercion or inducement to a different religion. That part of the truth also has to be spoken in the same vein as you talk about high HDI of the state. If there are positives, there are stark negatives which need to be addressed as well.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by piri on Nov 13, 2017 12:02 PM
I do not know whether anyone had been converted to another religion by coercion or inducement.
If anyone was converted by coercion, it is upon them to make a strong complaint about it to the police and not rest till he or she is able to convert back. (It is difficult to visualise how someone can be converted to another religion by force in these times).
If anyone was converted by inducement, then nobody has any business poking his or her nose into it since it is that persons choice.
Either way, Narendra the komaaaali still does not earn respect by braying out that Kerala is Somalia ! He has only made a big fool of himself !
Re: Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by rajarshi banerjee on Nov 13, 2017 12:31 PM
The conversion strangely when done by inducement from X to Y is fine but when done from Y to X raises all kinds of brouhaha.
The other part is that Kerala is a state of 36 million, so 6000 out of them is a small percentage. I don't think you would know each one of the 36 million people in the state, right.
Regards police complaint etc, I don't think I need to tell you how the system works across the country especially when the govt tacitly supports that form of conversion, so lets not get into the technicalities.
I hope you have not missed the observations made by the Kerala HC twice & also the comments made by former CM, VS Achutanandan, way back in 2013 regards PFI & such organisations which are clandestinely going about doing this.
End of the day the truth is very much out there, to believe or not to is upto you. In a democracy you are entitled to your opinion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by rajarshi banerjee on Nov 13, 2017 01:18 PM
You are free to believe whatever you want to. If you don't believe in any religion & x amount of money can make you change, fine its your choice. Don't apply it to everybody, others necessarily don't think the way you think.
The comparison with Somalia has been made on justified grounds which you don't agree. So lets agree to disagree.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The BJP,
by piri on Nov 13, 2017 12:50 PM
Leave out what you hope, what you think...etc
Come to the point.
Conversion to other religions ?
What has that got to do with the komaaaali braying out that Kerala is Somalia in terms of human development ?
And about conversion itself. As long as the people who allegedly get converted do it out of their choice (whether it is out of conviction or out of desire for rewards or out of some fancy for other names or out of some fad or any other reason), just what business do you or I or any other third party have to attempt to interfere ?
For instance, I dont believe in religion. But if someone, for some stuxpid reason, offers me Rs 5 crores to change my name to that of another religion, I will gladly do so ! And it would be easy for me since I dont believe in religion at all.
What do all these have anything to do with komaaaali Modi braying out that Kerala is Somalia and then his bhakts demanding respect for him when he is ridiculed for it ?
