Canada faces serious foreign interference issues, but these challenges must not be weaponized to unfairly target friendly and important allies like India.
In Episode 1544 of CutTheClutter, Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta looks at some top economists pointing to the pitfalls of ‘currency nationalism’ with data from 1991 to 2004.
The decorated Naga officer from Manipur also served as envoy to Myanmar & Nagaland chief secy. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated a museum dedicated to the Tawang hero Thursday.
While we talk much about our military, we don’t put our national wallet where our mouth is. Nobody is saying we should double our defence spending, but current declining trend must be reversed.
Someone made up the claim that Gandhi condemned Udham Singh’s killing of O’Dwyer and a whole lot of other are repeating it without question.Wikipedia cites The Harijan (March 15, 1940) as the source. There is no issue with that date. Moreover, there is no mention of Singh in the Harijan.
That’s why Gandhi was never honoured with Nobel Peace Prize, whereas his followers like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther were. If Gandhi had the audacity to forgive and forget a diabolical personality like dyre, saving Bhagat Singh’s life would have been a cake walk for him. In fact it was Gandhi himself who must have found his popularity threatened by the rise of Bhagat Singh and Subhash Bose in particularly the youth of the nation. So, he deliberately removed the competitive hurdles of his way to his political throne and made a very clear pathway for autocracy in Indian National Congress which is very clearly reflected in INC even today holding his surname
In his death too this mahatma (or guratma) killed and raped 6000 brahmin men , women and children in Maharashtra for none of their mistake…they were innocent. All brahmins who survived and lived thereafter lost their homes and properties for ever. Gandhi’s philosophy and his chela Neheru made laws to protect the killers of brahmins.
Well, dyer was unapologetic till his fate. He said that some say it was a right step while some say it was wrong. He wanted his Maker to classify if it was right or wrong to do. Don’t know what document recorded his apology.
Gandhi was a megalomaniac. For him it was always my way or the highway. He is a hated figure in Bengal – from his refusal to ask for clemency for Khudiram Bose, his constant criticism of revolutionaries, the politics that he played with Subhas Chandra Bose that resulted in Bose leaving Congress, his U turn over partition etc. It is high time someone genuinely independent historian, not of the left/ Congress variety, did an honest appraisal of him.
What happen 100 years ago by the British. We see a very similar character like General Dyer in Gen Narendra Dyers Mo from Gujurat.We the defenceless Indians jad to face the atrocites and National radical violence ALL OVER IN INDIA SINCE last 5 YEARS VERY SIMILAR TO VIOLENCE WHICH TOOK PLACE IN JALLIANWALA BAGH . The Butcher of Gujurat did the same in 2002 .
HERE GOES ANOTHER DICTATOR under the Gab of Hindutava Nationalizim. HAI RAM WHAT A COUNTRY HAS COME DOWN TOO.
Gandhi was a megalomaniac, confused but astute politician. He was so forgiving of Dyer but criticized other Freedom fighters including Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru. Why such double standards? Why we consider him larger than life and who gave him the title “Bapu”? Country is bigger than any individual. Media kept brainwashing us with a singular narrative on Gandhi. He was a freedom fighter like many others. He had ability to mobilize people but He was not the reason why we were freed. He along with millions others like Subhash, Azad Hind Force, Chandrashekhar, Bhagat Singh and so forth all fought British.
British left for this collective pressure as well as because of the total destruction of their country in Second World War. Please teach the next generations right History.
There was no double standards.
Being victims we have the upper hand to forgive though not necessarily forget.
But being victims we would not be right to do likewise though we may have the right as the accused for it is against the principles of DHARMAM.
IT IS INDEED DANGEROUS TO BE GOOD.
A HONEST AND RIGHTEOUS MAN WOULD HAVE MANY ENEMIES AND PROBABLY BE A LONE SOUL.
There is no way in which a sane persone fails to criticise and get angry over such a gruesome and cowardly act done by Dwyer. But Gandhi surely wasn’t one of them. The worst part is that when Shaheed Udham Singh ji Killed Dwyer there at Britain and then got caught, Gandhi and Nehru condemned this heroic act of his. Gandhi did not even criticize Dwyer. But in Udham Singh’s case he not only Criticised him but also showed agony on his action.
Since he was a hypocrite and megalomaniac and Congress and Media kept teaching us a singular narrative that “Gandhi was larger than life”
It is very difficult to many people, to differentiate between a person and his qualities like, cruelty and kindness. Only Mahatma Gandhi could do it.
We have to remember, that General Dyer was a British Officer, and like many Britishers of those days, must be having nothing but contempt for Indians. An Officer, with this kind of mental make up could not have conducted himself in a better way.
That is why one, should not nurture ill will towards others. We can dislike people’s for their bad mentality, bad thinking, and bad practices they stand for, nevertheless we should not be cruel to them and kill them.
I think this is what Mahatma Gandhi ment, when he said General Dyer is to be distinguished from Dyersim which needed to be condemned.
There is law for crime ,one who believes in system should not behave like a Judge even if he is respected as father of Nation.Interpreting a crime as per own convenience itself is a crime more so when literacy rate was only twelve percent . What Dyre did was a rarest by any standard ,and punishment should be equally rarest.To pacify public anger or to justify was treacherous and to analogue it with social evils like untouchabilities was encouraging to Britisher so much so that they honoured General Dyre.
The number of people critical of Gandhi is growing these days as evident from comments here and on WhatsApp messages. However, rarely has there been a more innovative revolutionary in the history of the world (Dandi March is one example). Gandhi was a pacifist, but also a realist…a personality who kept evolving with changing circumstances and age. In the end he didn’t ask for power, and he was not afraid of death.
One shouldn’t justify a crime ,be it Gandhi or else ,but he did ,he even compared one singular crime with mass killing , he was declared father of nation but he was not father of those massacred in Jaliyanwala. We would have respected him more if he protested Jaliyanwala incidence and being lawyer faught on behalf of victims in court or on streets but he didn’t ,but use Dyrism for social evils. Gandhi used Indians and even his minor niece as Guinea pigs but never as a normal human being living with dignity and self respect and pride.This is Congress Ideology.
That’s why Gandhi was never honoured with Nobel Peace Prize, whereas his followers like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther were. If Gandhi had the audacity to forgive and forget a diabolical personality like dyre, saving Bhagat Singh’s life would have been a cake walk for him. In fact it was Gandhi himself who must have found his popularity threatened by the rise of Bhagat Singh and Subhash Bose in particularly the youth of the nation. So, he deliberately removed the competitive hurdles of his way to his political throne and made a very clear pathway for autocracy in Indian National Congress which is very clearly reflected in INC even today holding his surname
Popularity threatening..??
I think Mr.Gandhi was well aware about his potential and position.He was born leader and has abilities to mobilize the mass. Even if we remove Gandhi from Indian history then,I don’t think any leader would have enough potential to unite India.
Before Gandhian era,many leaders were born and they did well ..but they were just condensed in a small region even they didn’t tried to include the mass– (the citizen).. some tried but they were potentially not enough to lead the mass.
Someone made up the claim that Gandhi condemned Udham Singh’s killing of O’Dwyer and a whole lot of other are repeating it without question.Wikipedia cites The Harijan (March 15, 1940) as the source. There is no issue with that date. Moreover, there is no mention of Singh in the Harijan.
That’s why Gandhi was never honoured with Nobel Peace Prize, whereas his followers like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther were. If Gandhi had the audacity to forgive and forget a diabolical personality like dyre, saving Bhagat Singh’s life would have been a cake walk for him. In fact it was Gandhi himself who must have found his popularity threatened by the rise of Bhagat Singh and Subhash Bose in particularly the youth of the nation. So, he deliberately removed the competitive hurdles of his way to his political throne and made a very clear pathway for autocracy in Indian National Congress which is very clearly reflected in INC even today holding his surname
Is it true that Gandhiji said udhamsinh ,an insane? Nehru said udhar singh ‘s killing Dyer as nonsense deed?
In his death too this mahatma (or guratma) killed and raped 6000 brahmin men , women and children in Maharashtra for none of their mistake…they were innocent. All brahmins who survived and lived thereafter lost their homes and properties for ever. Gandhi’s philosophy and his chela Neheru made laws to protect the killers of brahmins.
Well, dyer was unapologetic till his fate. He said that some say it was a right step while some say it was wrong. He wanted his Maker to classify if it was right or wrong to do. Don’t know what document recorded his apology.
Gandhi was a megalomaniac. For him it was always my way or the highway. He is a hated figure in Bengal – from his refusal to ask for clemency for Khudiram Bose, his constant criticism of revolutionaries, the politics that he played with Subhas Chandra Bose that resulted in Bose leaving Congress, his U turn over partition etc. It is high time someone genuinely independent historian, not of the left/ Congress variety, did an honest appraisal of him.
What happen 100 years ago by the British. We see a very similar character like General Dyer in Gen Narendra Dyers Mo from Gujurat.We the defenceless Indians jad to face the atrocites and National radical violence ALL OVER IN INDIA SINCE last 5 YEARS VERY SIMILAR TO VIOLENCE WHICH TOOK PLACE IN JALLIANWALA BAGH . The Butcher of Gujurat did the same in 2002 .
HERE GOES ANOTHER DICTATOR under the Gab of Hindutava Nationalizim. HAI RAM WHAT A COUNTRY HAS COME DOWN TOO.
Gandhi was a megalomaniac, confused but astute politician. He was so forgiving of Dyer but criticized other Freedom fighters including Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru. Why such double standards? Why we consider him larger than life and who gave him the title “Bapu”? Country is bigger than any individual. Media kept brainwashing us with a singular narrative on Gandhi. He was a freedom fighter like many others. He had ability to mobilize people but He was not the reason why we were freed. He along with millions others like Subhash, Azad Hind Force, Chandrashekhar, Bhagat Singh and so forth all fought British.
British left for this collective pressure as well as because of the total destruction of their country in Second World War. Please teach the next generations right History.
There was no double standards.
Being victims we have the upper hand to forgive though not necessarily forget.
But being victims we would not be right to do likewise though we may have the right as the accused for it is against the principles of DHARMAM.
IT IS INDEED DANGEROUS TO BE GOOD.
A HONEST AND RIGHTEOUS MAN WOULD HAVE MANY ENEMIES AND PROBABLY BE A LONE SOUL.
There is no way in which a sane persone fails to criticise and get angry over such a gruesome and cowardly act done by Dwyer. But Gandhi surely wasn’t one of them. The worst part is that when Shaheed Udham Singh ji Killed Dwyer there at Britain and then got caught, Gandhi and Nehru condemned this heroic act of his. Gandhi did not even criticize Dwyer. But in Udham Singh’s case he not only Criticised him but also showed agony on his action.
Since he was a hypocrite and megalomaniac and Congress and Media kept teaching us a singular narrative that “Gandhi was larger than life”
It is very difficult to many people, to differentiate between a person and his qualities like, cruelty and kindness. Only Mahatma Gandhi could do it.
We have to remember, that General Dyer was a British Officer, and like many Britishers of those days, must be having nothing but contempt for Indians. An Officer, with this kind of mental make up could not have conducted himself in a better way.
That is why one, should not nurture ill will towards others. We can dislike people’s for their bad mentality, bad thinking, and bad practices they stand for, nevertheless we should not be cruel to them and kill them.
I think this is what Mahatma Gandhi ment, when he said General Dyer is to be distinguished from Dyersim which needed to be condemned.
There is law for crime ,one who believes in system should not behave like a Judge even if he is respected as father of Nation.Interpreting a crime as per own convenience itself is a crime more so when literacy rate was only twelve percent . What Dyre did was a rarest by any standard ,and punishment should be equally rarest.To pacify public anger or to justify was treacherous and to analogue it with social evils like untouchabilities was encouraging to Britisher so much so that they honoured General Dyre.
The number of people critical of Gandhi is growing these days as evident from comments here and on WhatsApp messages. However, rarely has there been a more innovative revolutionary in the history of the world (Dandi March is one example). Gandhi was a pacifist, but also a realist…a personality who kept evolving with changing circumstances and age. In the end he didn’t ask for power, and he was not afraid of death.
One shouldn’t justify a crime ,be it Gandhi or else ,but he did ,he even compared one singular crime with mass killing , he was declared father of nation but he was not father of those massacred in Jaliyanwala. We would have respected him more if he protested Jaliyanwala incidence and being lawyer faught on behalf of victims in court or on streets but he didn’t ,but use Dyrism for social evils. Gandhi used Indians and even his minor niece as Guinea pigs but never as a normal human being living with dignity and self respect and pride.This is Congress Ideology.
Mahatma Gandhi was wicked person on mas s acre.If he had courage, might have saved Lala Lajpat Rai too.
That’s why Gandhi was never honoured with Nobel Peace Prize, whereas his followers like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther were. If Gandhi had the audacity to forgive and forget a diabolical personality like dyre, saving Bhagat Singh’s life would have been a cake walk for him. In fact it was Gandhi himself who must have found his popularity threatened by the rise of Bhagat Singh and Subhash Bose in particularly the youth of the nation. So, he deliberately removed the competitive hurdles of his way to his political throne and made a very clear pathway for autocracy in Indian National Congress which is very clearly reflected in INC even today holding his surname
Popularity threatening..??
I think Mr.Gandhi was well aware about his potential and position.He was born leader and has abilities to mobilize the mass. Even if we remove Gandhi from Indian history then,I don’t think any leader would have enough potential to unite India.
Before Gandhian era,many leaders were born and they did well ..but they were just condensed in a small region even they didn’t tried to include the mass– (the citizen).. some tried but they were potentially not enough to lead the mass.