did India move away from Gandhism? - Page 9

@TM - I dont get it why is India's credentials and development being based on Gandhi's principles?

Originally posted by: tannipartner

I owe you an apology. I got carried away in the heat of the moment and have responded to you rudely. I am sorry to offend you. It was not my intention. I should have framed my response differently.

Here it is:

A huge number of people from Bengal and current Bangladesh, common people, would vehemently oppose your statement that people of certain regions/ provinces wanted separate state. It always were the leaders.

Offcourse you can have a different opinion on that. Thats why it is a debate.

An ill mannered person do not say I agree even to a person on opposite side of team,guess that portion did not come to your attention. But you are free to have your opinion. I am free to have mine.

PS: My apology was for my harsh response and my way of speaking only, I stand by what i tried to convey.

Re-edited: Sometimes you just have to speak out and lay it.

Originally posted by: King-Anu

It was not figure of speech. I ain't a kid. lol.

And you owe me nothing. You owed yourself a better framweork to debate with others and I am glad that you realized that. I dont want anything else.

Yes we differ. Lets move on.

To be honest, statements like this are quite ungracious, self righteous and obnoxious.

I've read several times where you say your understanding of English is not strong enough. This here definitely is the prime example of it. Tear apart is indeed a commonly used English idiom. The meaning is not intended to be literal, but figurative. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/tear+apart

Originally posted by: King-Anu

RTH

when we use people we mean most and not all or some. so a) i never said or implied all and b) your point that some wanted is wrong.

what is right is that indendence act of 1947 was based on referendum and voting through assemblies and in both situation majority decided and that is what i meant when i said people of certain regions/provinces wanted a separate state.

Anyway lets end it.

Your understanding of the Mountbatten Plan does not appear to be comprehensive. Only NW Frontier and Sylhet were to be decided by a referendum. In the case of Punjab and Bengal, only the political leaders in assembly voted. So to state that the people wanted it is in itself incorrect, let alone saying most. The final British line was a British demarcation.

After fifty plus years of independence, we see ourselves as independent sovereign nations. People today view separate nations. It seems natural to have a separatist perception and assume people back in the day had similar hardened perspectives. However, back in the day, whether it was Pakistan, India or Bangladesh most people actually did not desire partition. If you read press coverage of the era both grassroots and international, partition was undesirable, unfortunate and the final act of vandalism by the British before leaving.

Your "lol "and "lets end" it is quite irksome. Grow a pair, If you are serious be serious, if you are joking then joke, and if you want to end a debate, end it!

'Tearing apart' or 'torn apart' is indeed figurative, and the said member didn't say that he would do it himself or will have a group ready to do that to King-Anu. It was not a threat, more like a practical assumption about what would realistically happen.

If one is willing to start a debate, I believe the person should continue it to the best of his knowledge. No point in starting a chain of conversation to just end it abruptly midways, especially without refuting the opponent's points.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Re-edited: Sometimes you just have to speak out and lay it.



To be honest, statements like this are quite ungracious, self righteous and obnoxious.

Lets understand this. I thought (rightly or wrongly) that Tannipartner did not use appropriate words and told me that I will be 'torn apart" and people will come together to "tear me apart" and instead of fighting I told the member to behave and do not speak for all people. When the member apologized I actually said you do not owe me anything and I do not want an apology either. Instead the fact that you realized your mistake is what matters and I am glad. I believe the best apology is when one realizes own mistakes.

So you are calling such a person ungracious and obnoxious? lol. I don't know what was going through your mind when you made that statement.

I've read several times where you say your understanding of English is not strong enough. This here definitely is the prime example of it. Tear apart is indeed a commonly used English idiom. The meaning is not intended to be literal, but figurative.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/tear+apart

Are you a spokeperson for Tannipartner? lol. This is what I got from your link

"to rip someone apart savagely. Max threatened to tear Tom apart"

I do not know what is in ones' heart. The person is not in front of me either. The way that was written does not in anway indicate it was used figuratively. One does not tear apart a sentence before it is finished. People of different sorts do not come together to tear apart a point. It was probably a statement made in anger. If Tannipartner did not mean that then the member needs to come up with a better framework to present a point i.e. what I advised.

I appreciate your input very much but it is between me and that member.

Your understanding of the Mountbatten Plan does not appear to be comprehensive. Only NW Frontier and Sylhet were to be decided by a referendum. In the case of Punjab and Bengal, only the political leaders in assembly voted. So to state that the people wanted it is in itself incorrect, let alone saying most. The final British line was a British demarcation.

Those political leaders were elected and that means they represented people. Today if in India the parliment passes a bill by majority then that reflects the will of the people and not will of "political leaders". This is how a parlimentary system works.

In case of Punjab the westen block voted for keeping Punjab intact and as a part of domain Pakistan while eastern block voted for partition of Punjab and wanted to go in domain India. In case of Bengal the assembly first rejected being an independent unit (i dont remember that part exactly) but then a block consisting of Muslim dominated members voted to keep Bengal intact and go into Pakistan but the other block dominated by non-Muslims voted for partition of Bengal and that then went into India. Such a setup was constructed so that voice of all should be heard and situation of 51-49 does not arise. In any case it was THE MAJORITY that decided.

After fifty plus years of independence, we see ourselves as independent sovereign nations. People today view separate nations. It seems natural to have a separatist perception and assume people back in the day had similar hardened perspectives. However, back in the day, whether it was Pakistan, India or Bangladesh most people actually did not desire partition. If you read press coverage of the era both grassroots and international, partition was undesirable, unfortunate and the final act of vandalism by the British before leaving.

That is incorrect. The denominator here is not all population but people of certain region and provinces and there the majority wanted that.

Your "lol "and "lets end" it is quite irksome. Grow a pair, If you are serious be serious, if you are joking then joke, and if you want to end a debate, end it!

lol. people use 😊😃😆 to keep the debate light hearted. I use lol.

I respect you so I am ignoring your other point.lol

Originally posted by: King-Anu

So you are calling such a person ungracious and obnoxious? lol. I don't know what was going through your mind when you made that statement.

@King Anu

Regarding your response to Tannipartner

You misunderstood a figure of speech and reacted quite crudely asking a person to "behave civilized and not like a wild animal". That is quite a personal attack in my opinion.

However, I did give you benefit of the doubt for misunderstanding. If you look at my first post on the disagreement between you two, I did call out Tannipartner too for being aggressive in her response to you (which she acknowledged and took responsibility for).

I did not make any personal comments towards you. However, your response whether you intended it or not was ungracious, self-righteous and obnoxious. I stand by that statement wholeheartedly. I'm not in a position to say if it is a reflection of you as a person. But the words and tone you used were such.

You did not accept an apology. You did not accept a misunderstanding. You berated the person by saying, you aren't a kid implying that you know better than others. You showed no remorse or apology for insinuating that a member is behaving like an uncivilized wild animal or aggressive physical verbiage like "no mai ka lal can touch you without permission" when no one made physical threats. You further chastise a person for not having a right frame of argument. If such a response is not ungracious, self-righteous, and obnoxious, then I don't know what is.

Yes, "tear apart" has a literal meaning. But it is a figure of speech in common English usage. I don't understand why you insist on taking the literal meaning.

No, I am not Tannipartner's spokesperson. But when I saw you overreacting and responding ungraciously on a public forum, I felt it necessary to call you out on it. I'd call anyone out for that behavior. I've done that to people on my side, as well as friends when they overreacted in an argument. If I was at fault, I'd expect the forum members to call me out on it.

Regarding your response to Partition issues

1) Political decisions do not always represent the will of the people and it is incorrect to always ascribe them as will of the people. e.g. US military actions. Lincoln abolishing slavery.

2) The pre-partition regions were not functioning democracies. The assembly leaders were not direct representatives of the people. Some were elected based on very loose unstructured framework setup by the British. Others were nominated by their parties, or British officials. It is incorrect to consider those leaders anywhere close to elected leaders in a long functioning democracy.

3) A majority of the divisive sentiments were a result of British divide and rule policy, the rift within INC and Muslim League. There was a lot more politics and power play, than public concerns involved. The case of Bengal is a lot more complicated. There were many farming and fishing regions whose perspectives were not considered. East Bengal never had the infrastructure to support the low strata of society. The illegal immigration of people from East Bengal and now Bangladesh has been a huge international issue, reflecting that partition did not serve the common man – just separatist sentiments.

Regarding the "Lol"

Yes, it does represent something light hearted. That is why I suggest you actually use it when you are being light hearted and humorous. You have a tendency to gratuitously using it as a weasel word or diluting the debate. You make statements with very serious implications and then put a lol at the end of it as if it negates the implications. You use them to wiggle out of debate by claiming you were not serious, even though your words actually put you in the midst of the debate.