indeed, a secular set of states would have been good. but a united large state is better than small divide states. that's the idea of indiaThat would have been far better, bloodless and productive solution
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
indeed, a secular set of states would have been good. but a united large state is better than small divide states. that's the idea of indiaThat would have been far better, bloodless and productive solution
indian subcontinent are same people because there has been lot of internmingling for 5000 years
About Patel,he was the biggest hardcore Gandhian among the AICC eminence. Calling him anti-muslim would not do enough justice to his character.
Secondly,remarks like "Indians are happy to get rid of muslims" again is an outright denial of facts and still do not represent the majority.
India is still very young, and there are problems which are gradually being ironed out. first the south wanted to break away from india. Now they are firmly a part of india. the Maoists only want to unseat govt not break india. only loony elements want a separate state. So India has done a great job by being unified and the critical reason for staying united is tolerating and letting minorities flourish.So has there been in Europe.. and their current solution seems to working barely.
In the 5000 years.. the only time they were unified was under a majority rule of a communal section or higher power. Be it the Muslims.. the British or the current Hindu led leadership. Even during these times, when the ruling power lost its footing the nation fragmented easily.. be it the Marhatas revolt or Sikh Kingdom..The nations aspire for identity.
The current policy statements and allegiance of parties such as the BJP is ample proof that communal ideals are not dead and that there are multiple nations within India. Those making arguments of Hindu Muslim friendship are clearly ignorant of this reality.. and this statement is reflective of that
Perhaps, in the higher interests of mutual cooperation, we cannot afford to part with the monopolies which circumstances have placed in our hands, and [thus we] conceal our egoism under the cloak of nationalism, outwardly simulating a large-hearted patriotism, but inwardly as narrow-minded as a caste or tribe.
The question is never of friendship at an individual level. That exists even in Pakistan to an extent.. but the recognition of the community as a whole. Even the America with its much more tolerant and integrated society breaks down under pressure into distinct religious and racial groups.
What India has achieved in integration is exactly what the initial ideals of people like Iqbal and Jinnah were..but the current spate of problems that still exist are testament to the incompleteness of the method or solution used to unify India.
indeed, a secular set of states would have been good. but a united large state is better than small divide states. that's the idea of india
indeed, a secular set of states would have been good. but a united large state is better than small divide states. that's the idea of india
which country is united in the true sense? china is not , nor is pak or SL or even America. even UK is talking of splitting Scotland and England and Quebec wants to secede from Canada.But is it united in the true sense? Is there tolerance by the political leadership of each community( be it communal or national) for this . Would parties such as RSS tolerate Muslims in Maharasthra achieving their full potential if it ends up eating into the potential of Hindu majority?
And then by Contrast.. how has a state like Kerala fared much better in integration? Is it because the communal communities have found a sense of balance between each other?
tell me if congress which has ruled for 60 years has ruled as hindus or as seculars.And this large state should run as per wishes of majority community "Hindus" were the idea of congress leadership which forced even secular like MAJ to depart take stand to protect the interests of his community.
tell me if congress which has ruled for 60 years has ruled as hindus or as seculars.
It also showed that some muslims cannot even live among one another , effectively making it a three nation theory .
Indian Muslims are Indian historically but I heard Pakistanis many times bashing Muhajirs "India wapis chale jao, jahan se tum aaye the." If you don't consider Muhajirs as one of your own, how can even claim validity of two nation theory.
which country is united in the true sense? china is not , nor is pak or SL or even America. even UK is talking of splitting Scotland and England and Quebec wants to secede from Canada.
RSS has tolerated muslims to grow from 30 million in '47 to 160 million today. Muslims in MH/Guj and the south where they are in significant minority are doing very well today. We as Indians have lot more potential to realise irrespective of religion.
the only muslims who are not doing that well is in UP and Bihar. BUT, these 2 states are the known blackholes in india.
tell me if congress which has ruled for 60 years has ruled as hindus or as seculars.