Discover & Read Best Stories about british comedians. Also Read about english comedians, black comedians, an era of darkness the british empire in india, british council library, best stand up comedians, british optics, american comedians, british movies, difference between american and british english, difference between american english and british english, british poets, popular comedians, best british movies, famous comedians.
Why Gandhiji is loved so much by West but not so much by Indians?
Why West love him:-
West love Gandhi ji because they only read his theory in text book or in other books not experienced it with their lives unlike Indians so they have no idea about the reality behind his idealistic theory in a imperfect not really idealistic world
They love it because his ideals later turned into peaceful revolution in America and South Africa
They love it because he was saying something unique, non violent and peaceful and impressive in the times of World War and when everyone was out to kill their competitors
British love him because he let them suck India dry for longer time and they encouraged him to carry on with his merry ways as that was beneficial to them, so no wonder they love him
I have huge respect for Gandhi ji as an Indian
But here's my problem with him-
At that point of time, many Indians got racist attack by the Caucasian people, so it's not like when Gandhi ji was pushed out of a train in South Africa was anything new or exceptional
Gandhi ji was the single person responsible for stereo typing Indian people. I mean you have got to be kidding me!! Gandhi ji was a very superficial person in a very opposite sense. Let me explain- what do we understand from word superficial - it generally used to describe the Hollywood type of people who are all about what is outside and so so and glamour etc etc. Well in Gandhi ji's case it's extreme opposite, he actually promoted India and indian as certain type in a very de glamouised way . As a result, a new trend was born throughout India which is why Indian still feel insecured about various things in life. Not really able to compete with the world the way they were supposed to, basically the problem self confidence and cagy type
We never were in through out our history non violent people. I mean look at war and traditions of various battle techniques in our history. So how come we suddenly become a non violent country in Gandhi ji's India. It is absolutely rubbish. I also don't agree with his non violent approach towards life as I believe it is very superficial, simplistic and one dimensional approach towards a very complicated multi dimensional world. There's a reason why human characteristic like violence exist in the first place. Now we are not Gods and we don't know what is exactly needed when or what is relevance of a particular thing in life, so by taking away a significant characteristics of human beings and expecting things to be good and normal and workable is not only unrealistic but in certain ways utter stupidity. Sorry for using this strong word, but I believe it is needed. His most famous speech about non violence is utter bullshit- “Eye for eye will make the whole world go blind”. I mean really!!!!!? Did Gandhi ji think the whole world was simple and one dimensional? People can't handle their emotions. I think Gandhi ji underestimate people's intelligence, resolve, and capabilities. It's true that violence doesn't solve problems but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't have any relevance in real life. Anybody who thinks like this is fooling himself.
Actually the reason why Gandhi ji was promoting bullshit like that because he had experience in western world. World War was going on that time, so he knew what exactly to say in that point of time to get all the necessary attention on him which will further clear his easy access into Indian politics as famous leader. As a result there was a little revolution in America on non violence, every one knows the Nelson Mandela case in South Africa. This is a chain reaction which Gandhi ji saw happening before it's actually happened. So Gandhi ji was never the honest the people of India would like to think. He obviously had the tricks of mischievous politician. He is actually a fake person in that way. His superficiality about India in de glamouised manner shows exactly that.
Another example is his phobia with technology, yet he never had any problems with any of that when he was in foreign countries. Infact he used telephone quite frequently. Hypocrisy anyone? Another fakeness exposed
He was a horrible father to his children yet he is the father of our country. Wow!!!
Gandhi ji was a different type of attention seeker than the usual type one get to see in real world. He was the politician and he knew that Shubhas Chandra Bose could become more popular or bigger leader than him so he made sure that Bose would leave Congress and create a new party named Forward Block. Basically a clever way to eliminate one's competition.
And then Nehru!!!!! Okay I have to share my personal experience here, I had a grandfather who died when I was little kid. Now my grandfather had the good fortune of seeing Gandhi ji when my grandfather was very young. He told me that nobody in India even heard of Nehru, everyone thought either Bose or someone like him would become the first prime minister of India as Gandhi ji made it clear that he won't be. So when Nehru became first prime minister of India, everyone was dumbfounded. But that time people were so poor and had plenty of problems of their own and that's why they could not afford to think about anything else as result, it was a very easy access for Nehru. It was after his accession into prime ministerial position, every one knew that he was the son Motilal Nehru!!! Ha, ha. Politics is a funny business.
Hitler was the aly of Bose , and enemy of British as a result he decided to help Bose to fight against British by sending a ship full of weapons to Azad Hind Fauj which definately would have troubled British in a very big way, after that British would have left India. But Gandhi ji betrayed not only Bose but entire people of India by revealing this secret to the British. Can you imagine? In other occasions, such act would make a person 'Mirjafar'. As I said before politics is a funny business :D
By the way Gandhi ji and Congress didn’t give us freedom from British. It's absolutely myth. Freedom struggle was a long hard battle where so many freedom fighters gave their lives from all over India. Most of them has been lost from history pages. Gandhi ji actually delay the process as I mentioned it before. Even when British decided to leave India, it was because of multiple reasons not because of Gandhi ji or Congress
British left because Azad Hind Fauj was creating too many problems for them to be here in India
British left because there were plenty of unheard freedom fighters from all over India gave their lives and Gandhi ji was part of this process not the mover and shaker of freedom movement. British didn't left India because of Gandhi ji infact they were encouraging him to be more non violent so that they can exploit more. Gandhi ji knew relevance of this support from British. Politics is a funny business :D
British left because they were dying from all over the world because of World War and they were becoming home sick
British left because there was economic clash back in England because of long hard battle in World War
Most Indians recognise 26 January as Republic Day, but not many are aware that on 26 January 1930, exactly 20 years before India became a republic, the Indian National Congress in an electrifying resolution declared Purna Swaraj — complete freedom from the British Raj. From then on, it was a question of when — not if —India would become free.
By 1920 Indian nationalist leaders were convinced that contrary to what the British government had promised during World War 1, few, if any, of their demands would be met. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the disturbances in Punjab and the Rowlatt Act (which indefinitely extended ‘emergency measures’ enacted by the government during the war) added to the sense of gloom. The British failure to heed the grievances of the leaders of the Khilafat movement over the disintegration of the Turkish Empire alienated a large section of Indian Muslims. All this culminated in the non-cooperation movement that was launched on 1 August 1920. The Khilafat movement, which Mahatma Gandhi endorsed, ran parallel to the non-cooperation movement.
‘Non-cooperation’ was a call to Indians to surrender all titles and government posts, boycott functions of the British government and shun foreign articles. It also stressed on developing small scale industries, using swadeshi articles and maintaining communal harmony.
Gandhi called off the non-cooperation movement after a mob in Chauri Chaura set a police station on fire, killing 22 people. As the first mass movement of its kind in India, it led to tangible gains. In their book India’s Struggle for Independence Bipan Chandra and other historians write: “After non-cooperation, the charge of representing a ‘microscopic minority,’ made by the Viceroy, Dufferin, in 1888, could never again be hurled at the Indian National Congress. Its reach among many sections of Indian peasants, workers, artisans, shopkeepers, traders, professionals, white-collar employees, had been demonstrated…The capacity of the ‘poor dumb millions’ of India to take part in modern nationalist politics was also demonstrated.”
Gandhi was arrested in March 1922. He was released from jail in February 1924 on health grounds. Meanwhile, there was a split in the Congress ranks, with a section calling themselves ‘Swarajists’ in favour of working with the councils instead of boycotting them. The most important Swarajists were C.R. Das and Motilal Nehru. Gandhi intervened between the two sides and brought about a rapprochement, agreeing that the Swarajist Party would work in the legislatures on behalf of the Congress.
Motilal Nehru called for the framing of a new Constitution to transfer real power to India in the first session of the central legislative assembly. The demand was passed. There were other moral victories for the Swarajists. The government faced severe criticism for its repression of dissent. C.R. Das said: “Repression is a process in the consolidating of arbitrary power — and I condemn the violence of the government for repression is the most violent form of violence…”
However, as the 1920s progressed, the nationalist movement seemed a little confused and lacking in coherence. Ironically, it was the British who provided a spark which re-ignited a nationwide struggle. This was the infamous Simon Commission, which was set up ostensibly to discuss further reforms for India, but without a single Indian on board. The backlash was immediate. In January 1928 Gandhi wrote in Young India: “The act of appointment (of the Simon Commission) needs for an answer, not speeches, however heroic they may be, not declarations, however brave they may be, but corresponding action…”
As soon as the Commission arrived in Bombay on 3 February 1928, it was met by protestors carrying black flags. Protests spread to major Indian cities, with the Congress at the forefront of the opposition. In one such protest in Lahore, the senior Congress leader Lala Lajpat Rai was severely injured in a brutal police lathi-charge and
What can be even better name for India since 'India' is a racist name in a world where native Americans are called 'Red Indians'? Is there any better solutions for India's new name which could explain India better without going away too much from the name 'India' as it sounds nice?
I like the name ‘India’ although I understand the sentiments behind the question.
Probably some Iranian in the past started to call us 'Hindu' from Indus valley civilization where original name was 'Sindhu' or 'Sindh'. They were mispronouncing the name 'Sindhu' to 'Hindu'. That name 'Hindu' got stuck from that time.
Now with British, they took it to another level, they were mispronouncing it to 'Indu' or 'Ind' or 'Indi' from 'Hindu' or 'Hind'. From that the name 'India' was invented by the British.
Now India is a sweet name. All the people in India like this name. But the problem is with it's racist history. For example Columbus, when he first discovered America, he thought he mistakenly came to India as he saw the similarity between native Americans and brown Indians. He thought these people are probably redish skintone Indian people or popularly called 'Red Neck'.
Now we all know that the name ‘Red Indian' is highly racist name in America, it is probably as notoriously racist as calling African people 'Nigga' or 'Nigro' or 'Nigre'.
That's why some people in West or more specifically in America has started to call native Americans as Indians to avoid any such issues.
This creates a lot of unnecessary stupid insulting issue. For example we all know American people are notoriously ignorant about things. As a result they often think that there's actually two Indian group in this world, one of them is in America and other one is in Asia. Some even go further than this and ask stupidly how come Indians exist in Asia?
Can you imagine how insulting it is to Indian people when at one point of time in history India aka ‘Bharatbarsha’ was arguably the richest country in the world or very close to it.
The whole Indian civilization has therefore become joke or absolutely nothing to some people due to some historical racist stupidity.
The thing is Indians don't necessarily care about such stupidity of Americans but they don't necessarily like to hear about this from various ways either. It's not really a very nice thing end of the days.
So therefore the issue such as the above mentioned question arises.
India is basically the world's smallest continents. We have more language than rest of the world, as many as culture and even more customs and food habits and many skintones.
All Indian people are not necessarily from Indus valley civilization. 50% or more or slightly less are from Dravidian civilization which tend to live in Southern India. Now because of history behind the name, when we call our country India, it doesn't necessarily represent the people from Southern India.
But what are the options- we can go back to ‘Bharatbarsha’ or in short 'Bharat' in that case southern Indians may say that is Northern Indian name which could create another controversy which we don't want.
We could name our country ‘Hind’ or 'Hindustan' but then other religious people will think that we are trying to destroy their religion which will create another controversy which we don't want.
Also the name 'INDIA' has such a sweet tune to it and it has also got into our Indian blood and brain.
So what can be the solution then?????
Well, in my opinion this should be the perfect solution-
Indus valley civilization+ Dravidian civilization = Indria (Indrian).
Yeah, just adding one 'R' in a perfect position and everything automatically put into place nicely and also the ‘India’ or ‘Indian’ tune is same with 'Indria' or 'Indrian' name.
It is also very Indian name. ‘India’ was completely British name. But 'Indria' sits nicely between an Indian name and a British name.
So what do you think?
You can choose disagree with me.
But end of the day, it is just a creative thought.
Let me tell you the reason why Kashmiri Muslims are trying to oppose it.
I will expose everything :D
Every lie :D
Kashmir never belong to muslims. It always belong to Indian civilization.
Muslims came from outside. They look like Chinese Central Asian.
Not like Pakistanis or Kashmiri Muslims.
Most of the kashmiris are converted and rest came from Afghanistan who were Buddhist before. Before that they had no religion in Afghanistan. In fact they were part of greater Indian civilization.
Before Ranjit Singh became the king of Kashmir, it was Muslims who were minority not Hindus. I am talking about Mughal period. In this time Hindus were forcefully converted into Muslims and Muslim's number was increasing.
But there was British invasion going on.
And chaos was all over the country. As a result it was impossible to concentrate on little issues such as this.
As a result during the period of Ranjit Singh's time, forceful conversation was going on in extreme rates. They were converting through rape and torture and murder
As a result very quickly Muslims were started to become equal number to Hindus.
British never interested in any of these issues, they were only interested in collecting tax
By the time of independence, Muslim became majority in Kashmir
So you can see a clear design was going on to capture the land of Kashmir. These things were going on some parts of Pakistan as well. But it didn't matter as those places now belong to Pakistan.
Now in Kashmir's case, Hari Singh, then king of Kashmir and descendents or successors of Ranjit Singh, signed documents to be part of India.
This is what upset Pakistan most as Kashmir went out of their grasp.
As other Pakistani regions were trying to be independent and don't want to be part of Pakistan.
But Pakistani military forced them to be part of Pakistan. They had similar ideas about Kashmir as well.
So when Kashmir became part of India, you can imagine how upset they were.
Plus when India liberated Bangladesh from Pakistan's torture and rape.
Pakistan hates that.
From then on they are hell bent on capturing Kashmir. They attacked us three times over this and lost each time in three war.
Their notorious design to capture Kashmir had a final point when they killed and driven away Kashmiri pandits from Kashmir who were majority before so that they can create an image infront of the world that it's the Indian government is torturing Kashmiris when they want freedom from India.
Plus this will be big help to control every part of Kashmir.
Now after becoming majority in Kashmir and driving away Kashmiri pandits and controlling every part of Kashmir, they are trying to be the good guy by wanting back the Kashmiri pandit’s return as they are thinking noone will understand their intentions and they already control everything in Kashmir :D
When Hari Singh signed contract, article 370 of Kashmir's special power act was temporary but never permanent. It was extended by playing dirty politics.
So when in present days, there was talk of scrapping it as it was never permanent, those who are behind the conspiracy to capture Kashmir, they are hell bent against it as they fear their dream of capturing Kashmir will go vain.
Let me make it very clear.
Kashmir belongs to Indian civilization, it doesn't belong to muslims.
Kashmir existed way before profet mahamad even born. Mordern day Kashmiris are all converted and rest are all Afghanistanis who were Buddhist before.
So there is no existence of muslim Kashmiri nationalism exist in Kashmir in real life, it was manufactured by propaganda and conspiracy by Pakistan.
Kashmir doesn't belong to kashmiri Muslims, period.
Their muslim identy to should be secondary not first. Indian should be their first identity, period.
Kashmir will always be part of India. We will recapture POK as well.
Yeah, it's against spirit of the game when someone does mankading but not when someone says fuck you…. :D( Ashes series in 1996 between one Australian and English cricketer) or when someone says, “Your wife is piece of shit” (Tussle between Glenn McGrath and Ramnaresh Sarwan) or simply pissing on the cricket pitch (by Great classy English cricketers) or “I'll cut your fucking head off” (Andrew Flintoff to Juvraj Singh and result six sixes) or when Dennis Liilee was threatening to hit the umpires in a 80’s ashes series or “I'll cut your fucking balls off” (Daren Leman to an English cricketer)
So basically what caucasian cricketers decide against spirit of the game becomes legitimate but not necessarily other way around
I always considered this so called spirit of the game is a load of fucking hypocritical bullshit, it's actually holding the game back
We need more characters in cricket today
It's not a conservative world anymore
India isn't either
To catch attention in today's world, you need expressive characters
Cricket was popularized in Victorian era when half of the world was ruled by British
Well, guess what?
It's not British ruled Victorian era, it's 2019 when people's attention span is smaller than a mosquito
There are so many things today to catch attention and people are debating over childish things such as this
Clearly wrong priority
This whole business of spirit of cricket is preventing that
Let people be expressive
Cricket will be more interesting to watch
Purists won't like it but they don't like anything new so their opinions aren't that important
Look for present and future generations
Let's give cricket a modern flamboyant look not conservative Victorian era look