Bose, Not Gandhi, Ended British Rule In India: Ambedkar

[MiG-21]

Nope. Only the Hindus in the land of India who converted to Islam for a piece of bone in their daal, ie lentils got conquered. Rest British used this land as a place of resources. They did not go around converting people and making pseudo Christians out of them. By force.

Rest raj thing, I don't even know what you're trying to say, say it point blank, no ?

Still they conquered, and they were divided.
I'm saying, this concept of a single country is not something which is inbuilt in us. Because we were divided and under other's rule most of the time. No one cared about being together as a single nation most of the time in this land. And because of that, if there was no freedom movement, the different linguistic groups would have just gone their separate ways after the british had given us independence.

 

[Cat Shannon]

Still they conquered, and they were divided.
I'm saying, this concept of a single country is not something which is inbuilt in us. Because we were divided and under other's rule most of the time. No one cared about being together as a single nation most of the time in this land. And because of that, if there was no freedom movement, the different linguistic groups would have just gone their separate ways after the british had given us independence.

You mean we don't qualify for homogeneous structure as a nation ?

Is that the final point ?

We still fight. So what ?

We were, are, will remain Indians in India. Period. Who cares what outsiders think ?

We don't. Matter of fact.

 

[MiG-21]

You mean we don't qualify for homogeneous structure as a nation ?

Is that the final point ?

We still fight. So what ?

We were, are, will remain Indians in India. Period. Who cares what outsiders think ?

We don't. Matter of fact.

Its not about qualifications. Its about what would have happened if the british just left us and we were without any freedom struggle. We certainly would not have just bonded together in a vaccum to form a single nation.

 

[Cat Shannon]

Its not about qualifications. Its about what would have happened if the british just left us and we were without any freedom struggle. We certainly would not have just bonded together in a vaccum to form a single nation.

Yes we would have. I'm not just saying it.

Never mind what the British would say. It was in their favor to see a divided India.

Like I said, we're not homogeneous people. Indians. Not now as well. Doesn't take "India" out of us. You either get that point, that line of thought or you don't. It's a feeling after all. And it existed in the land and it's people despite lack of homogeneous society across the country.

 

[MiG-21]

Yes we would have. I'm not just saying it.

Never mind what the British would say. It was in their favor to see a divided India.

Like I said, we're not homogeneous people. Indians. Not now as well. Doesn't take "India" out of us. You either get that point, that line of thought or you don't. It's a feeling after all. And it existed in the land and it's people despite lack of homogeneous society across the country.

It didn't exist. But it slowly built up when the freedom struggle was going on across India. If there was no freedom struggle, and the british had just left us suddenly, do you seriously believe all those kings in the kingdoms which existed as vassals under the british would have just thrown their hands up and said, "hey lets all give up our kingdoms and the luxuries and become part of a big country where we mean nothing"? The british would have first divided us and left, they were already successful and divided us with religion, they would have done the same division among the linguistic groups too, and no one would have bothered.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The more I see, the more I get disillusioned by our progressive Christian populace in India. Especially on this matter. I don't mean the evangelicals. I don't consider them human, but the ordinary educated cultured Christians have an inexplicable loathing of Bose. The admiration for Nehru is understandable, but the almost unanimous hate for Bose is something even Islamists don't share. I wonder why. This is also true here. I mean without the files how can you come to a conclusion anyway?

The files will open a huge can of worms, I am afraid.

 

[Cat Shannon]

It didn't exist. But it slowly built up when the freedom struggle was going on across India. If there was no freedom struggle, and the british had just left us suddenly, do you seriously believe all those kings in the kingdoms which existed as vassals under the british would have just thrown their hands up and said, "hey lets all give up our kingdoms and the luxuries and become part of a big country where we mean nothing"? The british would have first divided us and left, they were already successful and divided us with religion, they would have done the same division among the linguistic groups too, and no one would have bothered.

Yes, they did that linguistic part too. They did. Not would have. British divided us on all accounts possible.

All it needed was a ballav bhai patel. You mean to say here that we Indians or Hindus, however you see it...we are incapable of producing a patel sahab without British ?

Is that your point all day through ??

 

[MiG-21]

Yes, they did that linguistic part too. They did. Not would have. British divided us on all accounts possible.

All it needed was a ballav bhai patel. You mean to say here that we Indians or Hindus, however you see it...we are incapable of producing a patel sahab without British ?

Is that your point all day through ??

Yes, there wouldn't have been a patel without the british because there wouldn't have been a single rule in the land in the first place. Say for instance the british had only conquered half of india and the other half was a powerful country of its own and not a vassal state, do you think patel would attack that country(which was powerful enough to have self rule just neighboring the british india) and assimilate it? Do you believe the people in the other half would just say, hey lets join the other half which the british left and form a one big country because they are "Indians"?? Never!

 

[Cat Shannon]

Yes, there wouldn't have been a patel without the british because there wouldn't have been a single rule in the land in the first place. Say for instance the british had only conquered half of india and the other half was a powerful country of its own and not a vassal state, do you think patel would attack that country(which was powerful enough to have self rule just neighboring the british india) and assimilate it? Do you believe the people in the other half would just say, hey lets join the other half which the british left and form a one big country because they are "Indians"?? Never!

Google Hyderabad assimilation by none other than patel in exactly same time, location.

Hyderabad.



You believe shit which exists in your mind, while what you believe cannot happen or could not happen already happened 70 years back.

 

[MiG-21]

Google Hyderabad assimilation by none other than patel in exactly same time, location.

Hyderabad.



You believe shit which exists in your mind, while what you believe cannot happen or could not happen already happened 70 years back.

Nizam's hyderabad was a vassal princely state. What are you reading from my post?

 

[Cat Shannon]

Nizam's hyderabad was a vassal princely state. What are you reading from my post?

Who cares whether it was vassal non vassal, vessel, aluminum, stainless steel. Willing, unwilling, half willing, willing with a huge pimple on his @ss, who cares.

My point was, you were asking, what would have patel done ? You just have to surf Wikipedia.

Look up goa too. What about goa ?

 

[MiG-21]

Who cares whether it was vassal non vassal, vessel, aluminum, stainless steel. Willing, unwilling, half willing, willing with a huge pimple on his @ss, who cares.

My point was, you were asking, what would have patel done ? You just have to surf Wikipedia.

Look up goa too. What about goa ?

Just shows the intellect of you.
Goa too was a state which only existed because of the goodwill of the british. Goa didn't even have a proper military. They only existed because the british wanted it to exist.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Just shows the intellect of you.
Goa too was a state which only existed because of the goodwill of the british. Goa didn't even have a proper military. They only existed because the british wanted it to exist.

Goa was not a colony. It was the Overseas Territory of Portugal. Violating it would mean 'war' with Portugal. India was too far away from her. Britain was not. Plus, having subservient European powers benefitted both sides. It was a game of exploitation. The British left the Portuguese alone in Goa to butcher Hindus and Muslims and in return got concessions in Africa (North of Rhodesia for example). Give and take.

 

[Cat Shannon]

Just shows the intellect of you.
Goa too was a state which only existed because of the goodwill of the british. Goa didn't even have a proper military. They only existed because the british wanted it to exist.

So, when they didn't want to be in the India, India sent its army navy and took that land.

That is what patel would have done irrespective of goa's history. Vessel, vassal, what not. You, you were asking that. You got the answer ? Lol...

You're not reading my points.

It does not, I repeat does not matter whether they like it or not, India was Bharat, inspite of different kings of the land. Under British rule, the British let princely states continue, when British went back, they became India proper, constitution and all. India became a modern nation.

India existed before too. Not as a modern nation, but as a land of Hindus, sanatan dharmis, called as Bharat. If it doesn't go down your throat despite being shown our willingness to go to war to unify India going by your own logic, what can I do ? You think what you think. I am feeling bored, so do it with someone else. I can't and not really willing to convince you.

 

[MiG-21]

Goa was not a colony. It was the Overseas Territory of Portugal. Violating it would mean 'war' with Portugal. India was too far away from her. Britain was not. Plus, having subservient European powers benefitted both sides. It was a game of exploitation. The British left the Portuguese alone in Goa to butcher Hindus and Muslims and in return got concessions in Africa (North of Rhodesia for example). Give and take.

Yes, but that was a long time back. Portugal was already in decline when the 20th century hit.. and even humiliatingly accepted an ultimatum from the british to withdraw from their lands in Africa. The british could have easily taken goa.