JNU should be cleansed, renamed as Subhas Chandra Bose University: Subramanian Swamy

[jamahir]

So are you working on your own Rawalpindi conspiracy or you already part of it?

you are funny.

if i was then i wouldn't have been on pdf.

 

[raktaka]

It would be better to name it Veer Savarkar University

or Lala Lajpath Rai University, or Lokmanya Tilak University.

Why not give women a chance ? Name it Rani Laxmibai University.

 

[jamahir]

Why not give women a chance ? Name it Rani Laxmibai University.

why not 'razia sultan international academy'??

 

[raktaka]

why not 'razia sultan international academy'??

Because Razia sultan had no character.

She came to power by betraying and killing her own brother Ruknuddin ........ and then putter the queen mother in Jail.

She barely ruled for 4 years and all that time she was under siege from pretty much the entire kingdom. After being defeated by Malik Altuniya, the governor of Tabarhindh, she married him to escape death and cling on to power and he attempted to become sultan of delhi.

Sadly for him (and her), by then Muizzuddin Bahram, her own brother had declared himself the king of Delhi Of course this joker ruled only for 2 years before his own men killed him.

Hardly a women of character, won't you say ?

Rani Laxmibai however has no such ignoble act against her name. In fact she lived and died for principles.

But if you want a true worthy Indian women, we can always name the university Gargi Vachaknavi University.

 

[Musalman]

Yeah, renaming it after a Nazi will certainly get India the attention it really needs right now.

Please refrain from using derogatory remarks against Mr. Bose. He was a great leader

BTW if they name it Bose University , than they should be ready for even more radicalism from this university students.

 

[barbarosa]

What a game? why you change the ancient culture of India? JNU was build by Sir Jawaher lal Nehru in his tenure.Is Subhash Chandra Bose a great name more than Jawhir Lal N ehro? JLN was the first Hindu RULER in the history of Hindustan. There is no any SULTAN, King, Caliphs, President, Prime minister in the hole history of Hindus except him and his after.

 

[Pumba]

What a game? why you change the ancient culture of India? JNU was build by Sir Jawaher lal Nehru in his tenure.Is Subhash Chandra Bose a great name more than Jawhir Lal N ehro? JLN was the first Hindu RULER in the history of Hindustan. There is no any SULTAN, King, Caliphs, President, Prime minister in the hole history of Hindus except him and his after.

Our country.
Our rules.

 

[HariPrasad]

Ya right .
The quality of Admin and elder member's posts is astounding .
Subhas Chandra Bose was a socialist in his entire life.

You are making a false assumption that Wisdom grows with the number of post.

 

[HariPrasad]

Hello....am new here....could you please help with how to make posts as a beginner?

Post 30 post first and than you can introduce yourself in member's introduction by going to Quick navigation (Upper right a hierarchy sort of symbol is there) >>>> Member introduction>>>>>New post.

 

[navtrek]

Yeah, renaming it after a Nazi will certainly get India the attention it really needs right now.

really are you kidding me Subhash Chandra Bose and the INA is the sole reason why India got its independence. This was the man who asked for purna swaraj.

If he was at the helm of power i don't think India would be divided that too on religious lines.

 

[jamahir]

Please refrain from using derogatory remarks against Mr. Bose. He was a great leader

BTW if they name it Bose University , than they should be ready for even more radicalism from this university students.

that is right.

also if renamed as 'shaheed bhagat singh university'... bhagat was a proper socialist.

really are you kidding me Subhash Chandra Bose and the INA is the sole reason why India got its independence. This was the man who asked for purna swaraj.

If he was at the helm of power i don't think India would be divided that too on religious lines.

i agree.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

also if renamed as 'shaheed bhagat singh university'... bhagat was a proper socialist.

People think socialism is bad.
Fact 1: Socialism is not bad. What is bad is few people looting in name of socialism
Fact 2: Communism is not Socialism
Fact 3: All modern democracies are Socialist in nature. There is no capitalist country anymore.
Fact 4: You need to change your blinkered eye glasses

 

[jamahir]

People think socialism is bad.

only the naive/ignorants and the sociopaths think so.

Fact 1: Socialism is not bad. What is bad is few people looting in name of socialism

??

Fact 2: Communism is not Socialism

communism is the penultimate human progression from socialism... i don't know what is the ultimate state.

Fact 3: All modern democracies are Socialist in nature. There is no capitalist country anymore.

there was only one true democracy in known human history - the libyan jamahiriya... venezuela has already moved in that direction, unless regime-changed by cia.

even the so-called communist countries are neither communist ( because communism is a vision that applies to all of humanity ) nor are they democratic ( because they are ruled by a party, the party ).

the western "democratic" countries that derive their systems from the british "parliamentary/representative democracy" are really multi-party dictatorships that are run by capitalism... even switzerland, a so-called direct-democracy, is not a true democracy because it is not guided by socialism and the political structure is complicated.

i quote from the libyan 'green book, part 1 - solution to the problem of democracy'[1]... see how the below undemocratic situations describe india so well :

Parliaments are the backbone of that conventional democracy prevailing in the world today. Parliament is a misrepresentation of the people, and parliamentary systems are a false solution to the problem of democracy. A parliament is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence of a parliament means the absence of the people. True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people, and not through the activity of their representatives. Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the people and the exercise of authority, excluding the masses from meaningful politics and monopolizing sovereignty in their place. People are left with only a facade of democracy, manifested in long queues to cast their election ballots.

To lay bare the character of parliaments, one has to examine their origin. They are either elected from constituencies, a party, or a coalition of parties, or are appointed. But all of these procedures are undemocratic, for dividing the population into constituencies means that one member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people, depending on the size of the population. It also means that a member keeps few popular organizational links with the electors since he, like other members, is considered a representative of the whole people. This is what the prevailing traditional democracy requires. The masses are completely isolated from the representative and he, in turn, is totally removed from them. Immediately after winning the electors' votes the representative takes over the people's sovereignty and acts on their behalf. The prevailing traditional democracy endows the member of parliament with a sacredness and immunity which are denied to the rest of the people. Parliaments, therefore, have become a means of plundering and usurping the authority of the people. It has thus become the right of the people to struggle, through popular revolution, to destroy such instruments - the so-called parliamentary assemblies which usurp democracy and sovereignty, and which stifle the will of the people. The masses have the right to proclaim reverberantly the new principle: no representation in lieu of the people.

If parliament is formed from one party as a result of its winning an election, it becomes a parliament of the winning party and not of the people. It represents the party and not the people, and the executive power of the parliament becomes that of the victorious party and not of the people. The same is true of the parliament of proportional representation in which each party holds a number of seats proportional to their success in the popular vote. The members of the parliament represent their respective parties and not the people, and the power established by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not that of the people. Under such systems, the people are the victims whose votes are vied for by exploitative competing factions who dupe the people into political circuses that are outwardly noisy and frantic, but inwardly powerless and irrelevant. Alternatively, the people are seduced into standing in long, apathetic, silent queues to cast their ballots in the same way that they throw waste paper into dustbins. This is the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world, whether it is represented by a one-party, two-party, multiparty or non-party system. Thus it is clear that representation is a fraud.

Moreover, since the system of elected parliaments is based on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in the real sense of the word. Votes can be bought and falsified. Poor people are unable to compete in the election campaigns, and the result is that only the rich get elected. Assemblies constituted by appointment or hereditary succession do not fall under any form of democracy.

Philosophers, thinkers, and writers advocated the theory of representative parliaments at a time when peoples were unconsciously herded like sheep by kings, sultans and conquerors. The ultimate aspiration of the people of those times was to have someone to represent them before such rulers. When even this aspiration was rejected, people waged bitter and protracted struggle to attain this goal.

After the successful establishment of the age of the republics and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unthinkable that democracy should mean the electing of only a few representatives to act on behalf of great masses. This is an obsolete structure. Authority must be in the hands of all of the people.

Fact 4: You need to change your blinkered eye glasses

my vision is quite clear... i am a simple person who goes by common sense and a constant desire to simplify things.


---

[1] http://www.bgf.nu/greenbook.pdf

 

[DesiGuy1403]

communism is the penultimate human progression from socialism... i don't know what is the ultimate state.

LOL..yeah.
Communism - power in hands of select few.
Socialism - power for empowerment of people.

The twisted commie ideology is getting boring!

??

indian commies looting funds intended for people

my vision is quite clear... i am a simple person who goes by common sense and a constant desire to simplify things.

Not talking about your vision. It's the blinkered glasses on top of your perfect eyes that are the problem!

 

[jamahir]

LOL..yeah.
Communism - power in hands of select few.
Socialism - power for empowerment of people.

The twisted commie ideology is getting boring!

1. can you state which socialist societies or propagators you admire??

2. the path to true communism goes through the jamahiriya ideology that is defined in the 'green book'... the social part of it must be changed so suit not only marxian theory but also modern advanced ideas... the economic part of it need not remain because money system must of course be abolished... but did you read the book section i quoted??

indian commies looting funds intended for people

??

Not talking about your vision. It's the blinkered glasses on top of your perfect eyes that are the problem!

others don't think so.

i think you are short-sighted which is not allowing you to look at things in a big-picture way.