Comments by "D K Verma" (@dkverma3872) on "Asian Boss"
channel.
-
56
-
14
-
12
-
6
-
@Smile-Assur Babasaheb too demanded separate electorates for Dalits, you dumβa$$! And he got it at once. Now do you have the audacity to call him loyal to Dalits only and not the country? Do you have the audacity of mocking hard won rights of Dalits and caste-based reservations meant for the upliftment of the oppressed classes? Would you call Babasaheb a separatist or “anti-H!ndu” for demanding separate electorates for Dalits? (Because you people are good at doing that)
Everyone knows that the Partition was a result of insecurity seeded by the British divide and rule, and also the greed of power of people like Jinnah. He polarised Indian Muslims into separatism, and riots began only when he called for “direct action”. On the contrary, people like Abul Kalam Azad who have been the members of Congress were strictly opposed to the idea of Partition as proposed by Jinnah and his Muslim League.
And as far as that book on Partition is concerned, you’ve grossly misunderstood it based on your own prejudices and stuρ!d!ty. Read the ‘Part II – Hindu Case Against Partition - Chapter VI – Pakistan and Communal Peace’ in that book you’re talking about. He never said that he supports division of people based on religion, but he said that since Pakistan was a reality, as long as the separation isn’t 100%, the communal problem of majority-minority and conflict between Hindus and Muslims will remain imminent in both India and Pakistan which would be disastrous for the growth of both nations, which is absolutely true till date! Muslims are oppressed in India and Hindus and Sikhs are oppressed in Pakistan. Leave them even Shia and Ahmadi Muslims are oppressed in Pakistan, so how can it be a protector of Muslims? This goes on to suggest why the two-nation theory was completely bogus and harmful.
So, Babasaheb was a man of great intellect, a far-sighted man who considered practical situations and discussed possible advantages and disadvantages of the Partition by strong arguments; unlike you, an ign0r@nτ h@tε m0ngerer who thinks that he has figured out a lot by seeing some half-baked information on YouTube as a part of propaganda of AKTK-type people. In fact, he would’ve sl@ρρed someone like you who calls for abolition of voting rights of a particular group, right in the face. He was an egalitarian who gave equal rights to every Indian, not like your shiττy N@z!st idol Golwalkar who called Musl!ms and Christians bigger threats than the Britishers (Because Hindutva b!goτs have a long history of licking Britisher’s a$$)
Remember one thing, whenever you Sangh! m0r0η$ will try to paint secular and progressive people like Babasaheb Ambedkar, Bhagat Singh or Netaji SC Bose as ant!-Musl!m or pro-H!ndu, you’ll fail miserably because they were opposed to any politics of religion and hence you’ll contradict yourselves at every other statement you make. You know why you do this? Because the Sangh has no national hero, as religious f@n@τ!c@l m@n!@cs like Savarkar and Golwalkar can’t become idols of an inclusive country like India! And yea, stay away from 2 rupee IT cell recruits, else they’ll make you lose your ability to think sensibly..!
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@abhijeetshetty5950 It seems you haven't even read or understood what I wrote 🤦🏽♂️ You couldn't answer how Khilafat supported partition but you're baking illogical things. So here have it, I'll address all your arguments one by one:
Khilafat was a movement only specific to India, and initially it was not against British colonialism but it was against British attitude towards Ottoman ruler who was also the head of Muslims at that time. (This is precisely what I said)
That's why Muslims organized protests against Britishers. Initially, Congress didn't participate in it because they thought that this was a religious issue, but when they saw the opportunity of making an anti-British sentiment among Indian Muslims, they supported it. And it was for the betterment of the freedom movement.
It didn't gain momentum in other Muslim countries like Arabia or Persia, because they were against Ottoman domination and wanted to gain power themselves, it's not a rocket science. 🤷🏽♂️ But India was neither a Muslim majority country nor it had to do much with the Khalifa, hence the movement.
And as far as Moplah riots are concerned, it started as a peasant uprising against colonial British government and feudal elite upper caste Hindus who were supported by Britishers. They were against oppressive feudal system and caste based oppression of peasants. Violence committed in Moplah riots is not justified at all, but this incident shouldn't change the whole narrative of Khilafat.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1