Case Against Naga Babu For Praising Godse!

[ShruteSastry]

😷

[Silverado]

Just now, ShruteSastry said:

wow, Just sick discussion.

What happened to Unity in Diversity. 2 terms govt isthe, mottam brain F*** chesesaru including highly educated guys.

Pity all of you.

IN HIS SPEECH IN COURT, WHEN HE WAS TRIED FOR KILLING THE MAHATAMA, HE PUT FORWARD HIS IDEALOGICAL DIFFERENCES.

THE SPEECH IS AVAILABLE ONLINE.

THIS IS THE EXCERPT BELOW.

“Mahatama strictly practised and imposed non violence on everyone. If the Indian National Congress and its leaders digressed he would start a fast unto death. The demands had to be complied with. His personal ideology at times harmed country’s interests.

I was furious at the Mahatama for accepting Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan, a separate nation, to be carved out of India. It was apparently a prerequisite for free India by the British. But then the British were already a spent force.

Gandhiji was supporting unreasonable Muslims interests at the cost of the Hindus.

First it was the demand for Pakistan which he accepted.

Second, the empty mosques housing Hindu refugees in Delhi were vacated on Gandhiji’s insistence, so that they could be occupied by Muslim refugees. In the cold winters, the Hindu refugees had no where to go. A request similar to that of mosques was not made for temples in Pakistan. On the other hand temples in Pakistan were defiled

All the Muslims were granted full security in India and had the choice to stay back, if they wanted. As a result majority of Muslims never went to Pakistan and the very purpose of creating a new nation, for them was defeated.

Unlike India, the Hindus in Pakistan were forced to leave the country. Men, women and children were brutalised. One million people died. Mahatama’s ideology of non violence, led to lots of violence.

I am, full of grouse, that Gandhiji and the Congress never exerted diplomatic pressure on Pakistan for the safeguard of its people or threatened to retaliate.

Sardar Patel had refused to grant fifty five crores to Pakistan from the exchequer. But on Gandhiji’s insistence the government policy had to be changed.

A Hindu activist Ganesh Shankar Vidhyarthi was brutally murdered by a Muslim mob. Gandhiji wanted everyone to give up their life for India’s freedom, but fighting non violently. He did not condemn the violent action of the Muslims. He was never for retaliation but suffering quietly.

Similarly the men of the Nizam of Hyderabad, carried out excesses on the Hindu brethren. But all Gandhiji did was appease the Nizam and requested him to give up his State and join the confederation of Independent states. The Nizam never ceded ground.

He significantly pointed out that after the Mahatama’s death, the Indian government sent, armed forces to Hyderabad and defeated the Nizam. Hyderabad too became a part of Independent India. Gandhiji with his philosophy of non violence would have never allowed it.

I assassinated Gandhiji so that his people, the Hindus did not suffer injustice.”

[ShruteSastry]

..

[kr123]

2 hours ago, zarathustra said:

Cheppina dantlo tappemundi. 

Whether you agree or disagree, let him have the right to express what he thinks. After all, Godse killed one man no matter how highly extolled he is did not indulge in a terrorist attack. 

 

Gandhi is our father of nation whether you like it or not , accept it or not 

He has no right to do what he has done 

[JaiTDP]

4 minutes ago, kr123 said:

Gandhi is our father of nation whether you like it or not , accept it or not 

He has no right to do what he has done 

who ??

[Silverado]

While popular opinion says that the freedom that we enjoy today is the result of the efforts of the Father of the Nation, would it be a delirious thought if Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose had more to do with ousting the British than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi?

Let’s have a look at what Netaji did for us.

Even ahead of Gandhiji’s Quit India Movement, Bose had pressed that the Congress serve a six month ultimatum to the British during the Second World War. It was an apt opportunity that Bose thought could be taken advantage of in 1939. But the party spearheaded by Gandhiji refused to act.

Notably, the gearing of the Indian National Army to combat with the British Indian Army coincided with the start of Gandhiji’s Quit India Movement in 1942. The movement fizzled out a few months after it was crushed in three weeks time.

 

While the argument still remains whether either were effective in affecting the retreat of the British, what needs primacy here, is Babasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’s interview with BBC’s Francis Watson in February 1955.

Ambedkar pondered as he recalled the then British Prime Minister’s move to retreat from India in 1947 , “I don’t know how Mr Attlee suddenly agreed to give India independence,” and he went on to say, “That is a secret that he will disclose in his autobiography. None expected that he would do that,” he added.

In the BBC interview he also affirmed that from his “own analysis” he had come to understand that “two things led the Labour party to take this decision” [to free India].

Ambedkar  explained: “The national army that was raised by Subhas Chandra Bose. The British had been ruling the country in the firm belief that whatever may happen in the country or whatever the politicians do, they will never be able to change the loyalty of soldiers. That was one prop on which they were carrying on the administration. And that was completely dashed to pieces. They found that soldiers could be seduced to form a party — a battalion to blow off the British.”

 

A year after his interview in October 1956, two months before Ambedkar passed away, the very secret was disclosed by Clement Attlee  in a confidential talk. This talk came out in the open only after two decades.

What Ambedkar had foreseen only became more consolidated from records and data from credible authorities such as Ajit Doval, National Security Advisor and Major General GD Bakshi.

Excerpts of an observation in a secret report (Nov 1945) by Sir Norman Smith, Director, Intelligence Bureau, only reinforces the impact of the INA on British move to transfer power: “The situation in respect of the Indian National Army is one which warrants disquiet. There has seldom been a matter which has attracted so much Indian public interest and, it is safe to say, sympathy… the threat to the security of the Indian Army is one which it would be unwise to ignore.”

In 1976, an interesting observation made by Lt General SK Sinha, former Governor of Jammu & Kashmir and Assam, one of the only three Indian officers posted in the Directorate of Military Operations in New Delhi in 1946, is worth a mention: “There was considerable sympathy for the INA within the Army… It is true that fears of another 1857 had begun to haunt the British in 1946.”

 

To add to it all British MPs met Atlee in 1946 and warned him that, “There are two alternative ways of meeting this common desire (a) that we should arrange to get out, (b) that we should wait to be driven out. In regard to (b), the loyalty of the Indian Army is open to question; the INA have become national heroes…”

So while it is true that Netaji was sidelined and eventually ousted from the Congress, it cannot be denied that he did erect an army that made the colonialists question their power over India.

Much buzz circulates in the country of his disappearance but little is acknowledged of his crucial role in delivering a powerful blow to the British Raj.

[Silverado]

Just now, Silverado said:

While popular opinion says that the freedom that we enjoy today is the result of the efforts of the Father of the Nation, would it be a delirious thought if Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose had more to do with ousting the British than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi?

Let’s have a look at what Netaji did for us.

Even ahead of Gandhiji’s Quit India Movement, Bose had pressed that the Congress serve a six month ultimatum to the British during the Second World War. It was an apt opportunity that Bose thought could be taken advantage of in 1939. But the party spearheaded by Gandhiji refused to act.

Notably, the gearing of the Indian National Army to combat with the British Indian Army coincided with the start of Gandhiji’s Quit India Movement in 1942. The movement fizzled out a few months after it was crushed in three weeks time.

 

While the argument still remains whether either were effective in affecting the retreat of the British, what needs primacy here, is Babasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’s interview with BBC’s Francis Watson in February 1955.

Ambedkar pondered as he recalled the then British Prime Minister’s move to retreat from India in 1947 , “I don’t know how Mr Attlee suddenly agreed to give India independence,” and he went on to say, “That is a secret that he will disclose in his autobiography. None expected that he would do that,” he added.

In the BBC interview he also affirmed that from his “own analysis” he had come to understand that “two things led the Labour party to take this decision” [to free India].

Ambedkar  explained: “The national army that was raised by Subhas Chandra Bose. The British had been ruling the country in the firm belief that whatever may happen in the country or whatever the politicians do, they will never be able to change the loyalty of soldiers. That was one prop on which they were carrying on the administration. And that was completely dashed to pieces. They found that soldiers could be seduced to form a party — a battalion to blow off the British.”

 

A year after his interview in October 1956, two months before Ambedkar passed away, the very secret was disclosed by Clement Attlee  in a confidential talk. This talk came out in the open only after two decades.

What Ambedkar had foreseen only became more consolidated from records and data from credible authorities such as Ajit Doval, National Security Advisor and Major General GD Bakshi.

Excerpts of an observation in a secret report (Nov 1945) by Sir Norman Smith, Director, Intelligence Bureau, only reinforces the impact of the INA on British move to transfer power: “The situation in respect of the Indian National Army is one which warrants disquiet. There has seldom been a matter which has attracted so much Indian public interest and, it is safe to say, sympathy… the threat to the security of the Indian Army is one which it would be unwise to ignore.”

In 1976, an interesting observation made by Lt General SK Sinha, former Governor of Jammu & Kashmir and Assam, one of the only three Indian officers posted in the Directorate of Military Operations in New Delhi in 1946, is worth a mention: “There was considerable sympathy for the INA within the Army… It is true that fears of another 1857 had begun to haunt the British in 1946.”

 

To add to it all British MPs met Atlee in 1946 and warned him that, “There are two alternative ways of meeting this common desire (a) that we should arrange to get out, (b) that we should wait to be driven out. In regard to (b), the loyalty of the Indian Army is open to question; the INA have become national heroes…”

So while it is true that Netaji was sidelined and eventually ousted from the Congress, it cannot be denied that he did erect an army that made the colonialists question their power over India.

Much buzz circulates in the country of his disappearance but little is acknowledged of his crucial role in delivering a powerful blow to the British Raj.

SC Bose true father of nation

[JaiTDP]

39 minutes ago, reality said:

liking multiple and mutually contradictory ideologies ee burada gallake chellu...

Pawala gadu Che Che ani... ippudu NaMo antunnattu...

Congress vaallemi thakkuva kaadhu ga -  Sams vs Vyabs logic lo first veelley vuntaaru.

42 minutes ago, JaiTDP said:

Arey Congress Lunchvodka's - Gandhi thaatha thellollani tharimi 10githe, ippudu meeru adhe thella M0nda mudd1 kaduguthunnaaru !! 

Meeru Gandhi thaatha ki em value isthunnaru ra chuth!ye gaallu - veellu pakkanodiki vachi neethulu sebuthunnaru gabbu m0nda k0dukulu 

 

[kr123]

20 minutes ago, JaiTDP said:

who ??

Snakebob pogiding gadse in fublic

[DummyVariable]

@Silverado

Question for you.

We know that Bose was aligned with the Japanese at that time. If Bose had won against the Raj and if India went under Japanese control, wouldn’t we be worse off given the history of Japanese invasions and their human rights abuses in the countries they occupied? 🤔  

[reality]

6 minutes ago, JaiTDP said:

Congress vaallemi thakkuva kaadhu ga -  Sams vs Vyabs logic lo first veelley vuntaaru.

 

ipudu congressollu edikelli vachindru ee discussion la..

[Mr Mirchi]

2 hours ago, zarathustra said:

It's an assassination not a murder. But Naga babu just expressed the thought that he might have done that due to his own motives which weren't clearly understood at that time, perhaps as much as they are today. 

But Naga Babu has a right to express what he wants and support who he wants without legal repercussions antunna tha's all. Not saying I support or oppose him in this matter. 

Correct vere country lo gandhi ki manchi peru vundhi adhi manavaalle chedadhobbuthunnaaru...may be gandhi wrong side vundochu .. dhani valla godse shoot chesi vundochu... leni manishi meedha edhoti gelakavalisina avasaram ledhu.. gandhi vundi vundi bad for society or wrong angles vunnavi anukunte u can critize sonce he is alive...

bjp ni satisfy cheyataniki e thuppasi babu gadu deniki post lu moosukoni kuthuriki pelli chupulu chudaka

[dewarist]

4 minutes ago, reality said:

ipudu congressollu edikelli vachindru ee discussion la..

Janalu Congress ni marchipoyina..vellu maatram marchipoleru

[dewarist]

As someone already stated in this discussion Gandhi is the father of the nation. It's a pity that abuse his name so shamefully these days. Why can't the government remove him as father of the nation if he has done wrongful deeds.  No point in bashing him and also calling the father of the nation.

[JaiTDP]

12 minutes ago, reality said:

ipudu congressollu edikelli vachindru ee discussion la..

Pawanaal/Modi yetta vachaado attey vacchindhi Congress kuda .