Has BJP done well in these 4 years?

anil wrote:

Arunima Singh wrote:

I am scared of the current scenario and how things are going against Modi and most of them are the misunderstanding and mislead by opposition party. If Modi goes out, I am sure that it is done deal for my generation to see India on a progressive path. The political drama, circus and corruption will be back with a full swing.

Congress government in Rajasthan is trailer. First they went to RG for deciding who will be CM, than again they went to RG for deciding name of ministers,and now again went to RG for deciding portfolio for ministers. Is it democracy?

Are you aware that Russia is a  democracy and Putin is absolute Tsar. Whats wrong with RG being all powerful?. History remembers only strong men.

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

I will just add a most famous quote by Nirad Choudhry. 

To the memory of the British Empire in India,

Which conferred subjecthood upon us,
But withheld citizenship.
To which yet every one of us threw out the challenge:
"Civis Britannicus sum"
Because all that was good and living within us
Was made, shaped and quickened
By the same British rule.”

Who will like to deny this?

HA HA HA HA! What a quote! The perfect example of the brainwashing and Anglicization of Indians by the British. Do you even realise that you actually make it sound like Indians were nothing more than uncivilized barbaric fools with no brains until the British came and saved us from ourselves? True that they brought postal service, railways etc. etc. in India but they did it for themselves, more precisely to facilitate transferring of wealth and riches that belonged to us into their own coffers! Do you know that textile produced on Indian handlooms by Indian weavers was one of the best in the world and the first thing that British did was to take away the fine cotton produced in India to Manchester and then making us buy that same cotton at very heavy prices?? The purpose of this was clear, to increase their wealth by selling that cotton to other countries as well and at the same time depriving our looms and weavers of raw goods so that ultimately, Indian textile industry died away. This is just one example. Another example of the amazingly wonderful British Raj in India is the Great Bengal Famine in 1770 which was engineered by the British. I have given a link, if possible do read and try to clear the layers of ignorance or whatever it is that is there on your eyes! I do respect British for their some admirable qualities, I have worked closely with them and I still have many close British friends. But saying that they were our saviors and we are where we are due to them would be a great insult to our culture, tradition and everything that our freedom fighters fought for!

https://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/

Dear friend , laughing at the quote of the greatest writer in English from India, who is honoured by the Government and the Sahitiya Academy is in my view not the best thing to do.

I maintain that whatever you see when you step out of your home is a gift of English rule. Read Dunn and you will realize what India was before English rule, thuggery, sati, Child marriage , Caste killings etc was rampant. You want that to continue. In any criticism one must be rational, yes there were faults but the good is more than that. I withdraw from further writing on this thread.

MG Singh wrote:

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

I will just add a most famous quote by Nirad Choudhry. 

To the memory of the British Empire in India,

Which conferred subjecthood upon us,
But withheld citizenship.
To which yet every one of us threw out the challenge:
"Civis Britannicus sum"
Because all that was good and living within us
Was made, shaped and quickened
By the same British rule.”

Who will like to deny this?

HA HA HA HA! What a quote! The perfect example of the brainwashing and Anglicization of Indians by the British. Do you even realise that you actually make it sound like Indians were nothing more than uncivilized barbaric fools with no brains until the British came and saved us from ourselves? True that they brought postal service, railways etc. etc. in India but they did it for themselves, more precisely to facilitate transferring of wealth and riches that belonged to us into their own coffers! Do you know that textile produced on Indian handlooms by Indian weavers was one of the best in the world and the first thing that British did was to take away the fine cotton produced in India to Manchester and then making us buy that same cotton at very heavy prices?? The purpose of this was clear, to increase their wealth by selling that cotton to other countries as well and at the same time depriving our looms and weavers of raw goods so that ultimately, Indian textile industry died away. This is just one example. Another example of the amazingly wonderful British Raj in India is the Great Bengal Famine in 1770 which was engineered by the British. I have given a link, if possible do read and try to clear the layers of ignorance or whatever it is that is there on your eyes! I do respect British for their some admirable qualities, I have worked closely with them and I still have many close British friends. But saying that they were our saviors and we are where we are due to them would be a great insult to our culture, tradition and everything that our freedom fighters fought for!

https://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/

Dear friend , laughing at the quote of the greatest writer in English from India, who is honoured by the Government and the Sahitiya Academy is in my view not the best thing to do.

I maintain that whatever you see when you step out of your home is a gift of English rule. Read Dunn and you will realize what India was before English rule, thuggery, sati, Child marriage , Caste killings etc was rampant. You want that to continue. In any criticism one must be rational, yes there were faults but the good is more than that. I withdraw from further writing on this thread.

If you think that only him and other British writers are great and write only truth while others have a myopic vision of history and the greatness that was India prior to British rule, then I welcome your decision to not write further in this thread. Also if you think that Chaudhari wrote those lines to praise British, then think again and do some research. I am giving here the paragraph from wiki about the said quote. Do think again when you next try to twist lines from author's quote claiming them to be something else when they actually mean another thing.

His masterpiece, The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, published in 1951, put him on the long list of great Indian writers. He courted controversy in the newly independent India due to the dedication of the book, which ran thus:

To the memory of the British Empire in India,
Which conferred subjecthood upon us,
But withheld citizenship.
To which yet every one of us threw out the challenge:
"Civis Britannicus sum"
Because all that was good and living within us
Was made, shaped and quickened
By the same British rule.

The dedication, which was actually a mock-imperial rhetoric, infuriated many Indians, particularly the political and bureaucratic establishment. "The wogs took the bait and having read only dedication sent up howls of protest", commented Chaudhuri's friend, editor, historian and novelist, Khushwant Singh.^{[citation needed]} Chaudhuri was hounded out of government service, deprived of his pension, blacklisted as a writer in India and forced to live a life of penury. Furthermore, he had to give up his job as a political commentator in All India Radio as the Government of India promulgated a law that prohibited employees from publishing memoirs. Chaudhuri argued that his critics were not careful-enough readers; "the dedication was really a condemnation of the British rulers for not treating us as equals", he wrote in a 1997 special edition of Granta.^[4] Typically, to demonstrate what exactly he had been trying to say, he drew on a parallel with Ancient Rome. The book's dedication, Chaudhuri observed, "was an imitation of what Cicero said about the conduct of Verres, a Roman proconsul of Sicily who oppressed Sicilian Roman citizens, who in their desperation cried out: "Civis romanus sum".^[4]

Also when you talk about Indian culture, I would suggest you go beyond the child marriage and sati, which sad to note that you don't seem to realise they came into practice as a way to protect young girls from Muslim aggressors.

Baki to jaisi jiski soch!!!

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

MG Singh wrote:

I will just add a most famous quote by Nirad Choudhry. 

To the memory of the British Empire in India,

Which conferred subjecthood upon us,
But withheld citizenship.
To which yet every one of us threw out the challenge:
"Civis Britannicus sum"
Because all that was good and living within us
Was made, shaped and quickened
By the same British rule.”

Who will like to deny this?

HA HA HA HA! What a quote! The perfect example of the brainwashing and Anglicization of Indians by the British. Do you even realise that you actually make it sound like Indians were nothing more than uncivilized barbaric fools with no brains until the British came and saved us from ourselves? True that they brought postal service, railways etc. etc. in India but they did it for themselves, more precisely to facilitate transferring of wealth and riches that belonged to us into their own coffers! Do you know that textile produced on Indian handlooms by Indian weavers was one of the best in the world and the first thing that British did was to take away the fine cotton produced in India to Manchester and then making us buy that same cotton at very heavy prices?? The purpose of this was clear, to increase their wealth by selling that cotton to other countries as well and at the same time depriving our looms and weavers of raw goods so that ultimately, Indian textile industry died away. This is just one example. Another example of the amazingly wonderful British Raj in India is the Great Bengal Famine in 1770 which was engineered by the British. I have given a link, if possible do read and try to clear the layers of ignorance or whatever it is that is there on your eyes! I do respect British for their some admirable qualities, I have worked closely with them and I still have many close British friends. But saying that they were our saviors and we are where we are due to them would be a great insult to our culture, tradition and everything that our freedom fighters fought for!

https://yourstory.com/2014/08/bengal-famine-genocide/

Dear friend , laughing at the quote of the greatest writer in English from India, who is honoured by the Government and the Sahitiya Academy is in my view not the best thing to do.

I maintain that whatever you see when you step out of your home is a gift of English rule. Read Dunn and you will realize what India was before English rule, thuggery, sati, Child marriage , Caste killings etc was rampant. You want that to continue. In any criticism one must be rational, yes there were faults but the good is more than that. I withdraw from further writing on this thread.

If you think that only him and other British writers are great and write only truth while others have a myopic vision of history and the greatness that was India prior to British rule, then I welcome your decision to not write further in this thread. Also if you think that Chaudhari wrote those lines to praise British, then think again and do some research. I am giving here the paragraph from wiki about the said quote. Do think again when you next try to twist lines from author's quote claiming them to be something else when they actually mean another thing.

His masterpiece, The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, published in 1951, put him on the long list of great Indian writers. He courted controversy in the newly independent India due to the dedication of the book, which ran thus:

To the memory of the British Empire in India,
Which conferred subjecthood upon us,
But withheld citizenship.
To which yet every one of us threw out the challenge:
"Civis Britannicus sum"
Because all that was good and living within us
Was made, shaped and quickened
By the same British rule.

The dedication, which was actually a mock-imperial rhetoric, infuriated many Indians, particularly the political and bureaucratic establishment. "The wogs took the bait and having read only dedication sent up howls of protest", commented Chaudhuri's friend, editor, historian and novelist, Khushwant Singh.^{[citation needed]} Chaudhuri was hounded out of government service, deprived of his pension, blacklisted as a writer in India and forced to live a life of penury. Furthermore, he had to give up his job as a political commentator in All India Radio as the Government of India promulgated a law that prohibited employees from publishing memoirs. Chaudhuri argued that his critics were not careful-enough readers; "the dedication was really a condemnation of the British rulers for not treating us as equals", he wrote in a 1997 special edition of Granta.^[4] Typically, to demonstrate what exactly he had been trying to say, he drew on a parallel with Ancient Rome. The book's dedication, Chaudhuri observed, "was an imitation of what Cicero said about the conduct of Verres, a Roman proconsul of Sicily who oppressed Sicilian Roman citizens, who in their desperation cried out: "Civis romanus sum".^[4]

Also when you talk about Indian culture, I would suggest you go beyond the child marriage and sati, which sad to note that you don't seem to realise they came into practice as a way to protect young girls from Muslim aggressors.

Baki to jaisi jiski soch!!!

Sati custom completely abolished in India. Child marriage is still in fashion here. But India is not only country where child marriage is in practice.

Neither wererhe British perfect nor was Indian civilization perfect. We have adapted to many Mughal customs and practices with regard to art,food habits and lifestyle. However, British rule changed our lifestyles especially that of women coming from middle class families to a great extent because of western education that was available to all , and a more liberal outlook. 

usha manohar wrote:

Neither wererhe British perfect nor was Indian civilization perfect. We have adapted to many Mughal customs and practices with regard to art,food habits and lifestyle. However, British rule changed our lifestyles especially that of women coming from middle class families to a great extent because of western education that was available to all , and a more liberal outlook. 

Nothing is perfect in the Universe. India is made from mixed culture and tradition. It is speciality of this country that it adopt all things which are suitable for it.

India in ancient days was the most civilized society. And when it comes to women empowerment and gender equality, our scriptures show that it was there. Women in India had a good respect in society and were well learned. Equality of gender prevailed. However, with all invasion of Mughals and others including British, practices like Purda system and Sati came into picture as women became soft targets for evil eyes of these invaders. 

India in ancient days was the most civilized society. And when it comes to women empowerment and gender equality, our scriptures show that it was there. Women in India had a good respect in society and were well learned. Equality of gender prevailed. However, with all invasion of Mughals and others including British, practices like Purda system and Sati came into picture as women became soft targets for evil eyes of these invaders. 

Arunima Singh wrote:

India in ancient days was the most civilized society. And when it comes to women empowerment and gender equality, our scriptures show that it was there. Women in India had a good respect in society and were well learned. Equality of gender prevailed. However, with all invasion of Mughals and others including British, practices like Purda system and Sati came into picture as women became soft targets for evil eyes of these invaders. 

Agreed in ancient days women are respectable. We worship women. For Parda and Sati parth Mugal are responsible.

MG Singh wrote:

anil wrote:

Arunima Singh wrote:

I am scared of the current scenario and how things are going against Modi and most of them are the misunderstanding and mislead by opposition party. If Modi goes out, I am sure that it is done deal for my generation to see India on a progressive path. The political drama, circus and corruption will be back with a full swing.

Congress government in Rajasthan is trailer. First they went to RG for deciding who will be CM, than again they went to RG for deciding name of ministers,and now again went to RG for deciding portfolio for ministers. Is it democracy?

Are you aware that Russia is a  democracy and Putin is absolute Tsar. Whats wrong with RG being all powerful?. History remembers only strong men.

I know but it is not fair to compare democracy of India with Russia and China. Yes nothing is wrong if family head being powerful. Now congress in Private Ltd.

anil wrote:

Arunima Singh wrote:

India in ancient days was the most civilized society. And when it comes to women empowerment and gender equality, our scriptures show that it was there. Women in India had a good respect in society and were well learned. Equality of gender prevailed. However, with all invasion of Mughals and others including British, practices like Purda system and Sati came into picture as women became soft targets for evil eyes of these invaders. 

Agreed in ancient days women are respectable. We worship women. For Parda and Sati parth Mugal are responsible.

Really? Are you aware of the facts.  There is mention of Sati from 5/6 CE ie more than 2500 years  back. The official historian  accompanying Alexander noted Sati in India. You don't burn women who you claim were worshipped.  The Mahabharat records sati. Wife of Pandu committed Sati. was it OK? Even Ram Jethmalani the famous lawyer commented that Ram was a very poor husband as he made Sita go through an Agni pariksha. why not a man? The fact is  there was no divorce for a woman and she was condemned to live a life at the behest of the man. He could take another wife, no worry.  The laws of Manu on which Hinduism was based says that a Brahmin can sleep with a scheduled cast woman but a scheduled caste touching high caste meant death. I suggest you do some reading. There is such a lot of literature on the subject. Emancipation of Indian women commenced only during the days of the Raj

MG Singh wrote:

anil wrote:

Arunima Singh wrote:

India in ancient days was the most civilized society. And when it comes to women empowerment and gender equality, our scriptures show that it was there. Women in India had a good respect in society and were well learned. Equality of gender prevailed. However, with all invasion of Mughals and others including British, practices like Purda system and Sati came into picture as women became soft targets for evil eyes of these invaders. 

Agreed in ancient days women are respectable. We worship women. For Parda and Sati parth Mugal are responsible.

Really? Are you aware of the facts.  There is mention of Sati from 5/6 CE ie more than 2500 years  back. The official historian  accompanying Alexander noted Sati in India. You don't burn women who you claim were worshipped.  The Mahabharat records sati. Wife of Pandu committed Sati. was it OK? Even Ram Jethmalani the famous lawyer commented that Ram was a very poor husband as he made Sita go through an Agni pariksha. why not a man? The fact is  there was no divorce for a woman and she was condemned to live a life at the behest of the man. He could take another wife, no worry.  The laws of Manu on which Hinduism was based says that a Brahmin can sleep with a scheduled cast woman but a scheduled caste touching high caste meant death. I suggest you do some reading. There is such a lot of literature on the subject. Emancipation of Indian women commenced only during the days of the Raj

I totally agree with that  ...I have always thought that Ram was essentially a self centered individual more concerned bout his own image ...However, one positive aspect about Hinduism is that Hinduism has undergone far more reforms that other religious groups. Although the west is considered t be developed, the religious fanatics are as bad or even worse than Hindu fanatics..There were a few stray cases of women withstanding the social pressures but such examples are few and relegated to the upper classes only..

Thank you, Usha for stating an obvious fact which so many die-hard don't want to acknowledge.

In Mahabharta while one wife of Pandu went for Sati, other one called Kunti lived a life of dignity. Mahabharata is a classic book which has all shades and nuances and a whole gamut of human sides..Nothing comes in black and white and there is a shade of grey.

I totally agree with Usha that Hinduism has been one of the most progressive religion and has undergone a lot of reforms.

Arunima Singh wrote:

In Mahabharta while one wife of Pandu went for Sati, other one called Kunti lived a life of dignity. Mahabharata is a classic book which has all shades and nuances and a whole gamut of human sides..Nothing comes in black and white and there is a shade of grey.

I totally agree with Usha that Hinduism has been one of the most progressive religion and has undergone a lot of reforms.

May be it is only and only example in Mahabhar of Sati. No now that was situation at that time. But in Rajput community women used to be sati because it was their believe that we live life dignity so we also died with it. 

anil wrote:

Arunima Singh wrote:

In Mahabharta while one wife of Pandu went for Sati, other one called Kunti lived a life of dignity. Mahabharata is a classic book which has all shades and nuances and a whole gamut of human sides..Nothing comes in black and white and there is a shade of grey.

I totally agree with Usha that Hinduism has been one of the most progressive religion and has undergone a lot of reforms.

May be it is only and only example in Mahabhar of Sati. No now that was situation at that time. But in Rajput community women used to be sati because it was their believe that we live life dignity so we also died with it. 

If Sati brought dignity than why was it stopped and equated with murder. Very sad that you are extolling such views which have no place in the civilized world.

Arunima Singh wrote:

In Mahabharta while one wife of Pandu went for Sati, other one called Kunti lived a life of dignity. Mahabharata is a classic book which has all shades and nuances and a whole gamut of human sides..Nothing comes in black and white and there is a shade of grey.

I totally agree with Usha that Hinduism has been one of the most progressive religion and has undergone a lot of reforms.

Why do you ignore the part Usha wrote about the dignity of a woman which came only with the Raj?. The Mahabharata talks of sati, even one case is bad and is murder. That is the law. All have to accept that Sati was in vogue in India and it was NOT STOPPED for 2500 years particularly in North and East India. I will quote below "European travelers in the Mughal empire noted the practice, with Ralph Fitch noting in 1591:^[107]

When the husbande dieth his wife is burned with him, if shee be alive, if she will not, her head is shaven, and then is never any account made of her after.

François Bernier gave the following description:

"At Lahor I saw a most beautiful young widow sacrificed, who could not, I think, have been more than twelve years of age. The poor little creature appeared more dead than alive when she approached the dreadful pit: the agony of her mind cannot be described; she trembled and wept bitterly; but three or four of the Brahmens, assisted by an old woman who held her under the arm, forced the unwilling victim toward the fatal spot, seated her on the wood, tied her hands and feet, lest she should run away, and in that situation the innocent creature was burnt alive.

Who can support this must be mad? It was only in 1829 that Lord Canning equated Sati with murder and many were hanged for it.

One thing for sure that he has guts to take tough decisions and not go for populist one. He has taken a big risk with GST which was there in discussion for a decade and never implemented. He might loose 2019 like Atalji but that doesn't make him an inefficient PM and neither was Atalji.

This is my personal view and one might differ. But if I am asked to name efficient PM of my country, I will definitely name Modi along with Atalji and Narsimha Rao. 

Arunima Singh wrote:

One thing for sure that he has guts to take tough decisions and not go for populist one. He has taken a big risk with GST which was there in discussion for a decade and never implemented. He might loose 2019 like Atalji but that doesn't make him an inefficient PM and neither was Atalji.

This is my personal view and one might differ. But if I am asked to name efficient PM of my country, I will definitely name Modi along with Atalji and Narsimha Rao. 

While there are many things wrong with BJP and It's leaders including Me Modi , there is no one who matches home in stature and commitment. However, BJP has to let go of certtain issues that don't really help the people or talkless about such issues and diaciibe the various firebrand leaders who shoot away without thinking , bringing down the image of the party.