Of a Nation becoming a Senior Citizen...
"Nation Turns 60", scream the headlines. I can't for the life of me think of anything as ridiculous as this assertion. What utter bollocks, poppycock, balderdash and complete tripe! So, am I to believe that India did not exist before 1947? Then there's the other stupid thing of saying, "Wish the Nation on its 60th Birthday". Huh? Birthday? Nations have birthdays? So what of those Indians born before that time? Older than the nation, are they? I'm getting confused…
It seems to me to be a sign of the utter hogwash that the Congress and pseudo-secularist Left have spread that most people seem to regard Independence Day as the 'Birth of the Nation'. How else do you explain a nobody like Mohandas being called the 'father' of the nation? To make it slightly easier to understand for those Congress and Gandhi apologists among you, how can you be the father of your motherland? Ridiculous, but that's the kind of tripe that the 'masses' today seem to believe in. 'Gandhigiri'… Sigh…
A sign of the abject depths the Indian media has plumbed was one the Aaj Tak headlines today. "Amitabh's 60. India is 60!'. What an honour for India, eh? Maybe it's just me, but it seems sometimes as if the powers-that-be in this nation (read: the Leftists that seem to own the 'academia' and 'intelligentsia' today) wish us to forget everything about the India that existed before 15th August 1947!
Don't get me wrong. I'm as happy as the next fellow on the street that India won her Independence and all of that. I also have nothing against celebrating Independence Day (though I do so detest the national anthem being what it is – a paean to a British monarch) and believe that we should take pride in the day and must make a show of it. But to proclaim that the Nation was 'born' as a nation on that day is preposterous.
I shall refrain from entering 'controversial' (read: the truths that the Left will not admit to) territory here and stick to 'accepted' (read: the stuff that even the Leftists can't deny) historical facts. Now, as per these, India was a rich and prosperous nation in all senses of those words. She had such material wealth that none could but plan on invading and looting her. She had a knowledge reservoir so vast that even centuries of Muslim invasions followed by centuries of British oppression – both of which actively attempted to destroy this reservoir – failed to come close to destroying it.
Now we have those that proclaim that India is only 60 years old… Err… So what was that land that existed before that day? Pukistanis would be entirely correct in saying that their excuse for a nation is just 60 years old, but India? I mean, on the one hand we proclaim that we have the most (or one of the most, if you go by the Left… They seem to think that the Arabs are an older 'civilization', whatever they mean by that) ancient civilization and culture. We boast about our heritage, our traditions and blah and blah and blah… I wonder how we reconcile that with being 60 years old as a nation…
Hey! It just struck me, but maybe what they mean is that we should forget that India existed at all before 1947! Now that sounds cool in a way! So, now, let me see. Out with reservations in India, since there was no oppression in India… The pre-1947 era was not India!!! It did not happen at all!!! Whoop-dee-doo! Also, out with that stupid Gandhi and his boy-toy Nehru! They didn't do anything positive after all! All that the former did was ask for Pukistan to be given some money for nothing and the latter just presided over the rack and ruin of the Indian nation, its foreign policy and economy… Oh and he started and then lost the China war while he was at it too… What Independence struggle? Whose Independence struggle? India didn't exist, so whose Independence are you speaking of?
The British Invasion never happened… It was prior to 1947, so if you think the British invaded your land, you couldn't be Indian as there was no India at that time… So let's also get rid of this silly Independence Day concept… Oops… You mean that's where we started? Waitaminit! I'm getting all muddled here. What was it that we wanted anyway?
Get it? Savvy? Now, I can already hear the apologists screaming out the Leftist rhetoric that 'India' as a nation did not exist at all! That there was just a bunch of what they so love to call 'princely states' that did not owe allegiance to anyone but themselves. Now, this is going to come as a bit of a shock to most, but I would love to ask these Leftists and pseudo-intellectuals a few questions, rather than embark upon a lecture.
1. If they had no allegiances, what was the concept of the 'Chakravarti Emperor'?
2. Where on Earth did the name 'Bharat' spring up from… It's been there since more time than is documented (and definitely aeons more than Leftist thinking, much though the pseuds will hate me for saying this)! So, umm… where and why did the name originate? Since the Leftists are going to hate that one, I'll make the question more palatable – Why was the name 'Hindustan' chosen by the Arabs for the land as a whole? Surely those infinitely-better-than-Indians Arabs had more brains than to lump together a disparate and disunited set of 'princely states' and give them one label! Or do the Left dare admit one of the two impossibilities for Indian Leftists? The first being that the Arabs weren't really smart at all and the second being that these 'princely states' did actually form one large nation... After all, decentralization and federalism must have started before the USA came up, eh? How's that for a Leftist dilemma?
3. All through history (including the history that the Left grudgingly accepts), why does every historian and traveller refer to India as just one land? This is not true of any other geography in the world. What made this particular 'group of princely states' unique if they were not truly one nation?
I could speak on this for hours. The sad thing though is that I know for a fact that nobody who reads this – apart from those that already believe this – will even think about this madness. As a wise man once said, 'There is none so blind as he who will not see!' So I've decided to come out with my own line of tees. Slogans will run as below:
- If Gandhi fathered your mother (India), where does that leave your family?
- Rename India, We should call it Kasturba now…
- The PM is a foreigner, he's older than the country!
- Sonia 'desh ki bahu' is 61. She's the 'bahu' of a younger woman…
(It'll be past December when these tees hit stores in a mall near you!)
Do message me more if you can come up with more… I think this could just be the new rage… Err… Rage against moi? Naah… Ow!
Oh and by the way, I wonder if anyone has yet told the Americans about how George Washington is the Father of their nation and how Churchill is really the father of France (His actions led to the liberation of France in WW2, didn't they?) and how Churchill and Eisenhower and some others are therefore the fathers of Austria and half of Europe… And how Indira Gandhi is really the Mother of Bangladesh…
Oh and there's more really. Maharashtra is younger than India, since Maharashtra's formation happened only later. So really, there is no such thing as Maratha history before 1960, therefore meaning that Shivaji really was not a Maratha hero. He was something else, don't ask me what exactly, but something other than Maratha. Is there a Leftist or pseudo-seccie out there who can explain this to me please?
It seems to me to be a sign of the utter hogwash that the Congress and pseudo-secularist Left have spread that most people seem to regard Independence Day as the 'Birth of the Nation'. How else do you explain a nobody like Mohandas being called the 'father' of the nation? To make it slightly easier to understand for those Congress and Gandhi apologists among you, how can you be the father of your motherland? Ridiculous, but that's the kind of tripe that the 'masses' today seem to believe in. 'Gandhigiri'… Sigh…
A sign of the abject depths the Indian media has plumbed was one the Aaj Tak headlines today. "Amitabh's 60. India is 60!'. What an honour for India, eh? Maybe it's just me, but it seems sometimes as if the powers-that-be in this nation (read: the Leftists that seem to own the 'academia' and 'intelligentsia' today) wish us to forget everything about the India that existed before 15th August 1947!
Don't get me wrong. I'm as happy as the next fellow on the street that India won her Independence and all of that. I also have nothing against celebrating Independence Day (though I do so detest the national anthem being what it is – a paean to a British monarch) and believe that we should take pride in the day and must make a show of it. But to proclaim that the Nation was 'born' as a nation on that day is preposterous.
I shall refrain from entering 'controversial' (read: the truths that the Left will not admit to) territory here and stick to 'accepted' (read: the stuff that even the Leftists can't deny) historical facts. Now, as per these, India was a rich and prosperous nation in all senses of those words. She had such material wealth that none could but plan on invading and looting her. She had a knowledge reservoir so vast that even centuries of Muslim invasions followed by centuries of British oppression – both of which actively attempted to destroy this reservoir – failed to come close to destroying it.
Now we have those that proclaim that India is only 60 years old… Err… So what was that land that existed before that day? Pukistanis would be entirely correct in saying that their excuse for a nation is just 60 years old, but India? I mean, on the one hand we proclaim that we have the most (or one of the most, if you go by the Left… They seem to think that the Arabs are an older 'civilization', whatever they mean by that) ancient civilization and culture. We boast about our heritage, our traditions and blah and blah and blah… I wonder how we reconcile that with being 60 years old as a nation…
Hey! It just struck me, but maybe what they mean is that we should forget that India existed at all before 1947! Now that sounds cool in a way! So, now, let me see. Out with reservations in India, since there was no oppression in India… The pre-1947 era was not India!!! It did not happen at all!!! Whoop-dee-doo! Also, out with that stupid Gandhi and his boy-toy Nehru! They didn't do anything positive after all! All that the former did was ask for Pukistan to be given some money for nothing and the latter just presided over the rack and ruin of the Indian nation, its foreign policy and economy… Oh and he started and then lost the China war while he was at it too… What Independence struggle? Whose Independence struggle? India didn't exist, so whose Independence are you speaking of?
The British Invasion never happened… It was prior to 1947, so if you think the British invaded your land, you couldn't be Indian as there was no India at that time… So let's also get rid of this silly Independence Day concept… Oops… You mean that's where we started? Waitaminit! I'm getting all muddled here. What was it that we wanted anyway?
Get it? Savvy? Now, I can already hear the apologists screaming out the Leftist rhetoric that 'India' as a nation did not exist at all! That there was just a bunch of what they so love to call 'princely states' that did not owe allegiance to anyone but themselves. Now, this is going to come as a bit of a shock to most, but I would love to ask these Leftists and pseudo-intellectuals a few questions, rather than embark upon a lecture.
1. If they had no allegiances, what was the concept of the 'Chakravarti Emperor'?
2. Where on Earth did the name 'Bharat' spring up from… It's been there since more time than is documented (and definitely aeons more than Leftist thinking, much though the pseuds will hate me for saying this)! So, umm… where and why did the name originate? Since the Leftists are going to hate that one, I'll make the question more palatable – Why was the name 'Hindustan' chosen by the Arabs for the land as a whole? Surely those infinitely-better-than-Indians Arabs had more brains than to lump together a disparate and disunited set of 'princely states' and give them one label! Or do the Left dare admit one of the two impossibilities for Indian Leftists? The first being that the Arabs weren't really smart at all and the second being that these 'princely states' did actually form one large nation... After all, decentralization and federalism must have started before the USA came up, eh? How's that for a Leftist dilemma?
3. All through history (including the history that the Left grudgingly accepts), why does every historian and traveller refer to India as just one land? This is not true of any other geography in the world. What made this particular 'group of princely states' unique if they were not truly one nation?
I could speak on this for hours. The sad thing though is that I know for a fact that nobody who reads this – apart from those that already believe this – will even think about this madness. As a wise man once said, 'There is none so blind as he who will not see!' So I've decided to come out with my own line of tees. Slogans will run as below:
- If Gandhi fathered your mother (India), where does that leave your family?
- Rename India, We should call it Kasturba now…
- The PM is a foreigner, he's older than the country!
- Sonia 'desh ki bahu' is 61. She's the 'bahu' of a younger woman…
(It'll be past December when these tees hit stores in a mall near you!)
Do message me more if you can come up with more… I think this could just be the new rage… Err… Rage against moi? Naah… Ow!
Oh and by the way, I wonder if anyone has yet told the Americans about how George Washington is the Father of their nation and how Churchill is really the father of France (His actions led to the liberation of France in WW2, didn't they?) and how Churchill and Eisenhower and some others are therefore the fathers of Austria and half of Europe… And how Indira Gandhi is really the Mother of Bangladesh…
Oh and there's more really. Maharashtra is younger than India, since Maharashtra's formation happened only later. So really, there is no such thing as Maratha history before 1960, therefore meaning that Shivaji really was not a Maratha hero. He was something else, don't ask me what exactly, but something other than Maratha. Is there a Leftist or pseudo-seccie out there who can explain this to me please?
posted by Darth Midnightmare at 11:56 PM
3 Comments:
Brilliant!!!
Political India afaik was born in 1947. No?
Someone whom you advised to join a Left Party :mg:
it is the sixtieth year of self imposed dhimmitude.
Mahesh
Post a Comment
<< Home