India got azaadi in BHEEKH- Kangna. - Page 8

https://www.instagram.com/p/CWPaPhNooG2/?utm_medium=copy_link

I'm sorry, but explain it to me, please.

The person who posted Kangana's defense of her claims...

The idea behind her posts and yours seems to be that India should've involved itself in a physical battle instead of the nonviolent movement which won its freedom.

1) Are you repudiating peaceful protests?

2) Are you claiming the people who lost their lives amid those peaceful protests were beggars?

3) When you post Britain's claims against freedom fighters in support of your own arguments, do you believe you're any better than the political beggars you mock?

4) Britain still lost to the so-called beggars. Yes, they lost. That is, India won without shedding more blood than needed. Any argument against such wins?

5) Are you claiming India, outgunned and outspent, would've won a battle with the Brits?

6) Finally, how many of you are volunteering to sign up to lose their lives in a war which doesn't need to be fought? Is Kangana signing up? Are you? Or are you volunteering other people's lives? If you (generic you) want to prove your manhood, shouldn't you prove it at your own expense, not someone else's?

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I'm sorry, but explain it to me, please.

The person who posted Kangana's defense of her claims...

The idea behind her posts and yours seems to be that India should've involved itself in a physical battle instead of the nonviolent movement which won its freedom.

1) Are you repudiating peaceful protests?

2) Are you claiming the people who lost their lives amid those peaceful protests were beggars?

3) When you post Britain's claims against freedom fighters in support of your own arguments, do you believe you're any better than the political beggars you mock?

4) Britain still lost to the so-called beggars. Yes, they lost. That is, India won without shedding more blood than needed. Any argument against such wins?

5) Are you claiming India, outgunned and outspent, would've won a battle with the Brits?

6) Finally, how many of you are volunteering to sign up to lose their lives in a war which doesn't need to be fought? Is Kangana signing up? Are you? Or are you volunteering other people's lives? If you (generic you) want to prove your manhood, shouldn't you prove it at your own expense, not someone else's?

Aren't you expecting too much logic from someone who is trying to defend Kangna??😆

She has no justification, no grounds, no education and for sure not noble intentions, because a person can be ignorant and err as such, but Kangana Ranaut is an evil, hate filled manipulator, a reptile of the lowest form. Those who encourage and nurture her will eventually be very, very sorry, because hate is toxic to friend and foe alike.

I cannot believe that there still are people who lap up her 🤬 . She loves openly defecating because she knows there are people who are ready to gobble it all up.

If this same thing was said by Kanhaiah or Swara Bhaskar, this same scum of the earth would be going batshit crazy asking for their blood.

The only difference is that this vile toxic scum is backed up by the bigger shitty politicians who are determined to take the country to the dogs. Where is that Someshit Patra who goes berserk on the Muslims calling them names and what not? How come he has nothing to say about his fellow shit? Where is the mota bhai who sanctioned so many millions of Rupees on the Z+security to this scum like it was his baap ka diya hua zaydaad?

Enough said!😵

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I'm sorry, but explain it to me, please.

The person who posted Kangana's defense of her claims...

The idea behind her posts and yours seems to be that India should've involved itself in a physical battle instead of the nonviolent movement which won its freedom.

1) Are you repudiating peaceful protests?

2) Are you claiming the people who lost their lives amid those peaceful protests were beggars?

3) When you post Britain's claims against freedom fighters in support of your own arguments, do you believe you're any better than the political beggars you mock?

4) Britain still lost to the so-called beggars. Yes, they lost. That is, India won without shedding more blood than needed. Any argument against such wins?

5) Are you claiming India, outgunned and outspent, would've won a battle with the Brits?

6) Finally, how many of you are volunteering to sign up to lose their lives in a war which doesn't need to be fought? Is Kangana signing up? Are you? Or are you volunteering other people's lives? If you (generic you) want to prove your manhood, shouldn't you prove it at your own expense, not someone else's?

I'm not a historian, it's not my point to make but why doesn't a point by point rebuttal come from the likes of Ravish Kumar etc.? Kangana has put her arguments forward well enough. Why didn't the countries leaders at that time prevent the bloodshed during Partition? How many millions/ lakhs died then?

Isn't it also mockery when Congress minimise Sarvarkar for petitioning for his release? He also petitioned for the release of all political prisoners later on. In that NDTV video, Ravish talks about Gandhi spending 6 years in prison while belittling Sarvarkar who was jailed under far worse conditions for 13 years.

I had to Google admittedly who Sarvarkar actually was, so it's not like I had automatically sided with Kangana.

There are Britishers quoted in that IG story of Kangana's but there are also Indian names there, speaking against the Congress at that time. I haven't Googled to know who they are and what their credibility is. Similarly, Nehru was liaising with the British after the Partition and Independence while India was still a Dominion of Britain.

Since some of the controversy is because Kangana claimed that real freedom of the country wasn't gotten in 1947. Well, there are many sources that support that argument. Even an editorial from the Guardian makes the same claim as her.

https://indianexpress.com/article/research/independence-day-dominion-status-august-15-1947-6555454/

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2014/may/18/india-narendra-modi-election-destiny

Savarkar was a great hero, and freedom fighter, who because of Nehru, was still in prison even after freedom. His poem, sagara praan talamala, still brings so much pain while reading.

Nehru, was a crook and not a freedom fighter. He was a selfish guy.

But others, rani laxmi Bai, Tilak, gandhiji, Bhagat Singh, so many countless others gave so much of their life for freedom.

We live in a free India only because of their sacrifices

Originally posted by: Sadhanai

I'm not a historian, it's not my point to make but why doesn't a point by point rebuttal come from the likes of Ravish Kumar etc.? Kangana has put her arguments forward well enough. Why didn't the countries leaders at that time prevent the bloodshed during Partition? How many millions/ lakhs died then?

Isn't it also mockery when Congress minimise Sarvarkar for petitioning for his release? He also petitioned for the release of all political prisoners later on. In that NDTV video, Ravish talks about Gandhi spending 6 years in prison while belittling Sarvarkar who was jailed under far worse conditions for 13 years.

I had to Google admittedly who Sarvarkar actually was, so it's not like I had automatically sided with Kangana.

There are Britishers quoted in that IG story of Kangana's but there are also Indian names there, speaking against the Congress at that time. I haven't Googled to know who they are and what their credibility is. Similarly, Nehru was liaising with the British after the Partition and Independence while India was still a Dominion of Britain.

Since some of the controversy is because Kangana claimed that real freedom of the country wasn't gotten in 1947. Well, there are many sources that support that argument. Even an editorial from the Guardian makes the same claim as her.

Nope. We're not going to have any derailing here.

1. Kangana called the nonviolent freedom struggle begging. The people who died as a result are beggars according to her. The people who were imprisoned, those who were tortured... all beggars.

2. Therefore, her contention and that of those who support her claims is clearly that peaceful protests are beggary. Violent movement is the only brave way to fight an enemy.

3. But the nonviolent movement won the freedom. Rebut that if you can.

4. The violent one... let's see, shall we?

Petitioning for clemency was allowed under law, and no one needed to be mocked for it. But Savarkar didn't simply petition for clemency, did he?

This is what he said to the Brits (parts in blue are cited from an article):

“The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and therefore where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the Government?”

Savarkar offered to serve the “government in any capacity”. He declared he no longer believed in violence, justifying his conversion to constitutionalism because of the reforms the British government had introduced.

Savarkar said his conversion to the constitutional line would bring back “all those misled young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me as their guide”.

THIS is bravery according to Kangana and her supporters? THIS is not begging?

No, thank you. I'd rather follow the emaciated Gandhi, who, after his arrest, continued with his nonviolent protests against British rule.

There is self-respect in standing tall and striking back (not first) or taking it when you're unable to strike back but doing it anyway because it's your way of telling them "No, you are not my master!"

There is zero self-respect in attacking from a position of power a people whose lands you're usurping (as the Brits did). And cowering the moment your puny attempt at violence gets caught (as Savarkar did) is cowardice.

Guess why Bhagat Singh is considered a hero? Gandhi didn't agree with Singh's tactics, either. But Bhagat Singh didn't cower when he got caught. He looked the Brits in the eye as he died.

Those are the kind of people Kangana spit her vitriol on.

4. I don't really care who the Indians Kangana quoted were. Point is they and she and you are parroting the British line. The same Brits who ultimately lost. Those who echo the British government's opinions on a people who won against them can and will be included in the same group or will be called cowards.

5. There are many problems with Nehru's quasi-communist ideology, but liaising with Britain wasn't one of those issues. How do you think the world functions? You can just split off with no currency, no economy, no army, at 12:01 AM on August 15?

6. #5 leads to #6 actually. If you believe India could've functioned on its own on day 1 after centuries of serfdom, you will also believe India could've actually won an armed battle against the Brits.

I have a suggestion for Kangana and her supporters. India now has the 2nd biggest military in the world, 2nd only to China.

Go ahead... sign up to fight a war against Britain. Or anyone else, say China.

Very few will. Because all those warmongers are usually quick to volunteer other people's lives, never their own.

So why would someone sane, who actually knows such an unequal war can never be won, draft a whole nation of young people into idiocy?

They fought the war with the weapons they possessed. And won!

7. Partition... so now the claim is because the INC was unable to prevent the violence that happened there, India didn't actually get freedom by nonviolent protests? How does that even compute? It's as silly as saying because Covid is not killing as many people as Nipa, Covid is not dangerous. 2 different things... let's not try to conflate and derail.

___________

Enough is enough. The subcontinent existed for millennia before any of these political parties. The struggle of the people started in the 1800s. The land suffered many losses in the century which followed. Yes, freedom was obtained in 1947, and India was birthed.

It's history. Trying to erase it makes you no better than those who destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, than those who razed the subcontinent's temples and burned the ancient manuscripts.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Nope. We're not going to have any derailing here.

1. Kangana called the nonviolent freedom struggle begging. The people who died as a result are beggars according to her. The people who were imprisoned, those who were tortured... all beggars.

2. Therefore, her contention and that of those who support her claims is clearly that peaceful protests are beggary. Violent movement is the only brave way to fight an enemy.

3. But the nonviolent movement won the freedom. Rebut that if you can.

4. The violent one... let's see, shall we?

Petitioning for clemency was allowed under law, and no one needed to be mocked for it. But Savarkar didn't simply petition for clemency, did he?

This is what he said to the Brits (parts in blue are cited from an article):

“The Mighty alone can afford to be merciful and therefore where else can the prodigal son return but to the parental doors of the Government?”

Savarkar offered to serve the “government inany capacity”. He declared he no longer believed in violence, justifying his conversion to constitutionalism because of the reforms the British government had introduced.

Savarkar said his conversion to the constitutional line would bring back “all those misled young men in India and abroad who were once looking up to me as their guide”.

THIS is bravery according to Kangana and her supporters? THIS is not begging?

No, thank you. I'd rather follow the emaciated Gandhi, who, after his arrest, continued with his nonviolent protests against British rule.

There is self-respect in standing tall and striking back (not first) or taking it when you're unable to strike back but doing it anyway because it's your way of telling them "No, you are not my master!"

There is zero self-respect in attacking from a position of power a people whose lands you're usurping (as the Brits did). And cowering the moment your puny attempt at violence gets caught (as Savarkar did) is cowardice.

Guess why Bhagat Singh is considered a hero? Gandhi didn't agree with Singh's tactics, either. But Bhagat Singh didn't cower when he got caught. He looked the Brits in the eye as he died.

Those are the kind of people Kangana spit her vitriol on.

4. I don't really care who the Indians Kangana quoted were. Point is they and she and you are parroting the British line. The same Brits who ultimately lost. Those who echo the British government's opinions on a people who won against them can and will be included in the same group or will be called cowards.

5. There are many problems with Nehru's quasi-communist ideology, but liaising with Britain wasn't one of those issues. How do you think the world functions? You can just split off with no currency, no economy, no army, at 12:01 AM on August 15?

6. #5 leads to #6 actually. If you believe India could've functioned on its own on day 1 after centuries of serfdom, you will also believe India could've actually won an armed battle against the Brits.

I have a suggestion for Kangana and her supporters. India now has the 2nd biggest military in the world, 2nd only to China.

Go ahead... sign up to fight a war against Britain. Or anyone else, say China.

Very few will. Because all those warmongers are usually quick to volunteer other people's lives, never their own.

So why would someone sane, who actually knows such an unequal war can never be won, draft a whole nation of young people into idiocy?

They fought the war with the weapons they possessed. And won!

7. Partition... so now the claim is because the INC was unable to prevent the violence that happened there, India didn't actually get freedom by nonviolent protests? How does that even compute? It's as silly as saying because Covid is not killing as many people as Nipa, Covid is not dangerous. 2 different things... let's not try to conflate and derail.

___________

Enough is enough. The subcontinent existed for millennia before any of these political parties. The struggle of the people started in the 1800s. The land suffered many losses in the century which followed. Yes, freedom was obtained in 1947, and India was birthed.

It's history. Trying to erase it makes you no better than those who destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, than those who razed the subcontinent's temples and burned the ancient manuscripts.

I am surprised that why people are reacting to uneducated person like Kangana. Most of them do not have clear idea about Indian geography too. Moderates ( Congress and other political parties going through legislative path) and Revolutionaries ( Veer Sawarkar, Azad Hind Fauj, Bhagat Singh etc) were an instrumental part of Indian independence. You cannot discount anyone's contribution. Download some books on Indian Independence and read them.