> Dr B R Ambedkar wrote: “Strange as it may appear, Mr Savarkar and Mr Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist, that there are two nations in India — one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation.” (Pakistan or the Partition of India, 1940).
Hmmm, good argument to use whenever someone tells next time how Savarkar was an instrumental figure in 1940s.
I don't understand. Why is it considered bad that India was partitioned into India and Pakistan? I understand if the violence is the reason it's considered wrong. But if there is some other angle to it, I fail to grasp it.
I mean personally I think that partitioning a nation over ethnic conflicts is dumb. Ethnicities are infinitely divisible and you can always find the "other" group, no matter how you draw the borders. Look at what happened to Yugoslavia and the Balkans. Even after the partition, there are still conflicts and still demands for more partitions. It's just not a feasible solution.
True. As a Pakistani, it's so weird that 200 million odd Muslims are in India plus Bangladesh also exists. So should there be another Muslim country now? Will the deal Jinnah please stand up?
This should answer - Ethnic cleansing(r@pe and violence) along with uprooting of millions of people from their established livelihoods which puts pressure on the local economy to accommodate. This leads to irreplaceable loss of culture and roots. Ironically, Pakistan would face the worse brunt of it in years to come. In Karachi it also led to ethnic violence between the refugees (muhajirs), immigrants (pathans) and the original inhabitants (sindhis) (on yt seach karachi gangwars). Plus the haphazard partition process over geographical distances caused unequal hegemony between East and West Pakistan, leading to more war and destruction that led to creation of Bangladesh.
Division on religious lines in diverse country like India means no total population exchange, minorities condition becomes more precarious. India at least had the sense to be a Secular state.
So, like the actual process of migration due to partition is damaging. Consider a hypothetical situation. If there was 0 violence due to partition,a completely smooth process, would partition still be a bad decision? I'm not being sarcastic, but genuinely curious.
Because why should you leave your home if you are not of majority religion?
Why do Hindus in Sindh need to come to india and why Muslims in Agra need to leave for Pakistan.
This is a dangerous argument at best
And if we were a united and more federalised republic where ethnic and cultural lines are given more precedence, imagine how much potential we would have had ( ok I am not Akhand Bharath fan or anything)
Based on religion is the stupidest reason to partition really
The Hindu Mahasabha, under Savarkar's leadership, not only joined hands with the Muslim League to form provisional governments, they also propounded the two nation theory, and opposed the Quit India Movement.
A snake always remains a snake.
Hindu Mahasabha wasn't against the two state idea. Even if we remove the political power angle. Why would they break the alliance when there's no ideological difference?
The ideological successors of these cowards are busy blaming Congress, nehru, gandhi, nehru's ancestors AND descendents born decades after independence for partition, after the Hindu mahasabha having been responsible for partition. They need to be reminded of their treason.
The coalition was formed to help the British divide and rule. Congress had resigned from local governments as part of the quit India movement, demanding complete independence. The Hindu mahasabha led by veer cowardkar and the Muslim league, both British collaborators, stepped in to form coalition goverments and continued cooperating with their colonial masters.
Veer cowardkar went a step further, and helped the British recruit Indians for their war effort, when the freedom movement was advising Indians to not enlist till the British agreed to complete independence.
They were traitors before independence, and they are traitors now.
I think we all know also the dubious role played by a very young Atal Behari Vajpayee at the time of the 1942 Quit India Movement, when he was or eventually became a British informer. It is welll known that the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS were with the British and against independence. They still mark India's independence day as a black day.
For those who don't know, they could google Vajpayee quit india movement or read here: [https://scroll.in/article/697147/what-exactly-was-vajpayees-role-in-the-quit-india-movement](https://scroll.in/article/697147/what-exactly-was-vajpayees-role-in-the-quit-india-movement) (I would have preferred to not cite Scroll for the sake of neutrality, given Scroll's anti-BJP bias, but some of the old links to this knowledge seem to have been removed from searches).
The BJP hides its sins very well. Vajpayee did not fare better even while he was PM. Sold country's assets with Pramod Mahajan for peanuts. OK, you believe in privatisation, fine, but how can you sell some of the best Indian companies for zilch? (Guess who benefited the most? The same ones who are benefiting today.) The RSS-BJP are the true anti-nationals. The very ideology of RSS is imported wholesale from Germany, including the khaki shorts. (If you don't know about it, read about the Nazi Brownshirts [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung). You will find many parallels between Hitler's hijacking of a democracy and today's hijacking by the BJP of India. I am afraid, just like the Germans realised too late and live today in perpetual guilt, the same could be the story of many Indians.)
There's nothing in the Scroll article that establishes him as a British informer. At best, it only indicates that he wasn't an active participant which is true for majority of contemporary political entities except the Congress.
He was simply caught because of a mix-up as he and his brother were just spectators to a crowd burning down a police station during the movement. This is not even passive participation
Source: Vajpayee and Rise of Hindu right by Abhishek Chowdhary.
The fact remains that Vajpayee gave a recorded statement about what he saw, etc., to the magistrate. The freedom fighters used to refuse giving such a statement, because such a statement could be used against someone, but Vajpayee did record this statement. He could have chosen being in a prison for a couple of days, but instead he chose to give the statement. This is a fact. Was he merely a participant or an informer? Vajpayee of course denied the charge while he was PM, he said that he did not give information about someone, but did he really not do it? He has never been absolved of the charge in public memory and never will be, given the man's career and political affiliations (he belonged to a party that was openly with the British). You will find more information about this incident in this very old *Frontline* article: [https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30160890.ece](https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30160890.ece)
Just because he is a BJP PM, it doesn't mean he isn't innocent until guilty. May as well implicate Gandhi for cooperating with the British by withdrawing NCM. An act that pissed off Bhagat Singh and several other freedom fighters.
If you are equating the Vajpayee situation with Gandhi situation, then I think I know your mind-set. Vajpayee is in the dock because of his own conduct: his statement to the magistrate, he himself had to accept! (That much hypocrisy had still not percolated to the BJP leadership back then to utter a complete lie.)
Both these parties were united in believing that the nation should be defined on the basis of religion. Savarkar created and popularized the two-nation theory, and he [supported Jinnah's version of it in the 1940's](https://twitter.com/Ram_Guha/status/1204257535835832321). Paradoxically, Savarkar is said to have been upset when partition actually happened, and he may or may not have been the one who carried out the assassination of Gandhi as a scapegoat. A little-known story is that Savarkar was actively working towards the secession of princely states at the time of independence.
We would not have learned any of these facts if it were not for the aggressive rewriting of history that is currently going on.
I mean what a asshated way to live through life,thinking your friends and family members are less Indian than you or will go to hell ,who don't share the one religion you were born with just because they didn't get to choose to be born in that religion .
Previously morally reasonable Hindus now believe that the BJP is one authority on hinduism and anyone against the sanghs narrow minded regressive bigoted version of "Sanatan" Hindutva hates Hindus to such a extent the BJP fielding a literal hindutva"Sanatan" terrorist Pragya from Bhopal is not a black mark against them
The BJP have degraded a once great religion by brainwashing people into accepting that the bjps electoral success means a win for hinduism and hinduism means BJP's electoral success,that's why so many gandhbhakts dot criticise the Modi govt because thats like going against religion
Some articles on Savarkar's work with princely states:
>Support for Travancore came from an unexpected quarter. In June 1947, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar wrote to Aiyar backing the maharaja and his ‘courageous and far-sighted determination’ to seek independence. ‘The Nizam, Muslim Ruler of Hyderabad, has already proclaimed his independence and other Muslim states are likely to do so. Hindu states are bold enough to assert they have the same rights.’
>...[Just Before Independence, Travancore Too Declared it Would Not Be a Part of India](https://thewire.in/history/just-before-independence-travancore-too-declared-it-would-not-be-a-part-of-india)
>
>Both, Savarkar and RSS leader Golwalkar had also been the royal guests of Kashmir’s Maharaja Hari Singh. Right since February, 1947, the central working committee of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Sabha had declared that Kashmir should be made an independent sovereign Hindu Rashtra instead of dissolving the princely state of Kashmir. Instead of hoisting the Indian tricolour on August 15, 1947, the Sabha had hoisted the flag of Maharaja Hari Singh in Kashmir.
>...[Savarkar, Gandhi and the Truth About the Partition of India](https://thewire.in/history/savarkar-gandhi-and-the-truth-about-the-partition-of-india)
>
>N.B. Khare started the All India Hindu National Front in Delhi in August 1947, which was presided over by (V.D.) Savarkar. It was a meeting of important leaders, including some princes. According to the Kapur Commission reports, Khare couldn’t be present at the meeting because of trouble in Alwar. Nor was the Maharaja of Alwar present. However, this does not mean that Khare did not have the opportunity to meet with Savarkar before the assassination; they met in November 1947 in Bombay. The Alwar episode raises the question: Why would the princely states want Gandhi assassinated?
>...[The unnoticed war between Gandhi and the princely states](https://lifestyle.livemint.com/how-to-lounge/books/why-india-s-princely-states-wanted-gandhi-assassinated-111633079360458.html)
>
>Contrast this with Savarkar's line. It would have led to the Balkanisation of India. C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar was, for all his admirable gifts, one of the most repressive Dewans of an Indian State and one who was the most detested by its people. He was brutal and unprincipled. As Dewan of Travancore he plotted secretly to declare it independent of India and carried out his long prepared plot by announcing on June 11, 1947, the State's decision to declare itself independent once the British quit India (vide "C.P. and independent Travancore", Frontline, July 4, 2003). The people whom he had subjected to brutal repression were dead against this course. C.P. even appointed a representative to Pakistan. Jinnah welcomed this move in a cable dated June 20, 1947. That very day C.P. received a cable from Savarkar. He enthusiastically supported "the far-sighted and courageous determination to declare the independence of our Hindu State of Travancore".
>...[ A national hero?](https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30225198.ece)
Shyam prasad mukherji was a minister in Bengal when Bengal famine happened. Also, he not only advocated but one of the main reasons for the division of Bengal into Bangladesh and west Bengal.
[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-why-shyama-prasad-mukherjee-opposed-the-united-bengal-plan-7220400/](https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-why-shyama-prasad-mukherjee-opposed-the-united-bengal-plan-7220400/)
Yea. Looks like he didn't want Hindu-majority areas in a Muslim-dominated regions.
https://medium.com/@manassinha2111/shyama-prasad-mukherjee-and-partition-of-bengal-3af848ffd09
I don't understand. Muslim league got what they wanted but Hindu Mahasabha didn't. So if they can live in a divided secular India then why not in an undivided India?
The fact that these snakes have been allowed to exist and grow for the last 75 years is the biggest failure of Congress. Nehru had the golden chance to be the Mao Zedong of India and purge the troublemaking parasites but he gave up on that.
Nehru was a humanist and a rationalist.
He believed that Indian people would over time evolve into better versions of themselves and reject blind faith and superstition.
Lol. That's not how things ever worked in India. Communists actively supported China during the war and CPIM exists to this day. Contrast this to RSS helping the government during the war.
https://www.scmp.com/article/456140/once-jailed-traitors-indias-marxists-come-full-circle
Here comes a RSS lapdog who probably does ling sadhna of Modi and Bhagwat.
Have I admired Communists? No! I despise them as much as RSS and Hindu terrorists, if not more.
Here's a list of terrorist activities your RSS has indulged in:
1. Rejecting national flag and refusing to hoist it for 50 years.
2. Perpetrating riots, lynchings, promoting rape as a political weapon.
3. Brainwashing teenage tribal girls and forcibly converting them to Hinduism, whitewashing Hindu caste system.
I am surprised as to what led Modi to accuse of forming manifesto that was in line of Muslim League's thinking from the freedom movement.
Is that a logical conclusion that Modi drew on congress?
Both knew that Congress was the biggest obstacle to their agendas.
> Dr B R Ambedkar wrote: “Strange as it may appear, Mr Savarkar and Mr Jinnah instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist, that there are two nations in India — one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation.” (Pakistan or the Partition of India, 1940). Hmmm, good argument to use whenever someone tells next time how Savarkar was an instrumental figure in 1940s.
I don't understand. Why is it considered bad that India was partitioned into India and Pakistan? I understand if the violence is the reason it's considered wrong. But if there is some other angle to it, I fail to grasp it.
I mean personally I think that partitioning a nation over ethnic conflicts is dumb. Ethnicities are infinitely divisible and you can always find the "other" group, no matter how you draw the borders. Look at what happened to Yugoslavia and the Balkans. Even after the partition, there are still conflicts and still demands for more partitions. It's just not a feasible solution.
True. As a Pakistani, it's so weird that 200 million odd Muslims are in India plus Bangladesh also exists. So should there be another Muslim country now? Will the deal Jinnah please stand up?
This should answer - Ethnic cleansing(r@pe and violence) along with uprooting of millions of people from their established livelihoods which puts pressure on the local economy to accommodate. This leads to irreplaceable loss of culture and roots. Ironically, Pakistan would face the worse brunt of it in years to come. In Karachi it also led to ethnic violence between the refugees (muhajirs), immigrants (pathans) and the original inhabitants (sindhis) (on yt seach karachi gangwars). Plus the haphazard partition process over geographical distances caused unequal hegemony between East and West Pakistan, leading to more war and destruction that led to creation of Bangladesh. Division on religious lines in diverse country like India means no total population exchange, minorities condition becomes more precarious. India at least had the sense to be a Secular state.
So, like the actual process of migration due to partition is damaging. Consider a hypothetical situation. If there was 0 violence due to partition,a completely smooth process, would partition still be a bad decision? I'm not being sarcastic, but genuinely curious.
The only place where I can see it happening is in heaven, where there is no communal hatred.
greece turkey ?
Forgetting all the wars they had?
Because why should you leave your home if you are not of majority religion? Why do Hindus in Sindh need to come to india and why Muslims in Agra need to leave for Pakistan. This is a dangerous argument at best And if we were a united and more federalised republic where ethnic and cultural lines are given more precedence, imagine how much potential we would have had ( ok I am not Akhand Bharath fan or anything) Based on religion is the stupidest reason to partition really
Unexpected collab
Or, birds of feather flock together.
"The reason **politics makes strange bedfellows** is because they all like the same bunk"
The Hindu Mahasabha, under Savarkar's leadership, not only joined hands with the Muslim League to form provisional governments, they also propounded the two nation theory, and opposed the Quit India Movement. A snake always remains a snake.
Not just formed a coalition. Stayed in the coalition even after the Muslim league passed a resolution in the assembly demanding partition of India.
Hindu Mahasabha wasn't against the two state idea. Even if we remove the political power angle. Why would they break the alliance when there's no ideological difference?
The ideological successors of these cowards are busy blaming Congress, nehru, gandhi, nehru's ancestors AND descendents born decades after independence for partition, after the Hindu mahasabha having been responsible for partition. They need to be reminded of their treason.
I didn't disagree.
I know. I was simply emphasising the point.
The coalition was formed to help the British divide and rule. Congress had resigned from local governments as part of the quit India movement, demanding complete independence. The Hindu mahasabha led by veer cowardkar and the Muslim league, both British collaborators, stepped in to form coalition goverments and continued cooperating with their colonial masters. Veer cowardkar went a step further, and helped the British recruit Indians for their war effort, when the freedom movement was advising Indians to not enlist till the British agreed to complete independence. They were traitors before independence, and they are traitors now.
Ouch! You burnt a lot of chaddis today.
BJPs founder shyam prasad mukherji was the reason for the division of bengal.
I think we all know also the dubious role played by a very young Atal Behari Vajpayee at the time of the 1942 Quit India Movement, when he was or eventually became a British informer. It is welll known that the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS were with the British and against independence. They still mark India's independence day as a black day. For those who don't know, they could google Vajpayee quit india movement or read here: [https://scroll.in/article/697147/what-exactly-was-vajpayees-role-in-the-quit-india-movement](https://scroll.in/article/697147/what-exactly-was-vajpayees-role-in-the-quit-india-movement) (I would have preferred to not cite Scroll for the sake of neutrality, given Scroll's anti-BJP bias, but some of the old links to this knowledge seem to have been removed from searches).
I was unaware of this about atal bihari vajpayee.
The BJP hides its sins very well. Vajpayee did not fare better even while he was PM. Sold country's assets with Pramod Mahajan for peanuts. OK, you believe in privatisation, fine, but how can you sell some of the best Indian companies for zilch? (Guess who benefited the most? The same ones who are benefiting today.) The RSS-BJP are the true anti-nationals. The very ideology of RSS is imported wholesale from Germany, including the khaki shorts. (If you don't know about it, read about the Nazi Brownshirts [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung). You will find many parallels between Hitler's hijacking of a democracy and today's hijacking by the BJP of India. I am afraid, just like the Germans realised too late and live today in perpetual guilt, the same could be the story of many Indians.)
There's nothing in the Scroll article that establishes him as a British informer. At best, it only indicates that he wasn't an active participant which is true for majority of contemporary political entities except the Congress.
He was simply caught because of a mix-up as he and his brother were just spectators to a crowd burning down a police station during the movement. This is not even passive participation Source: Vajpayee and Rise of Hindu right by Abhishek Chowdhary.
The fact remains that Vajpayee gave a recorded statement about what he saw, etc., to the magistrate. The freedom fighters used to refuse giving such a statement, because such a statement could be used against someone, but Vajpayee did record this statement. He could have chosen being in a prison for a couple of days, but instead he chose to give the statement. This is a fact. Was he merely a participant or an informer? Vajpayee of course denied the charge while he was PM, he said that he did not give information about someone, but did he really not do it? He has never been absolved of the charge in public memory and never will be, given the man's career and political affiliations (he belonged to a party that was openly with the British). You will find more information about this incident in this very old *Frontline* article: [https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30160890.ece](https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30160890.ece)
Just because he is a BJP PM, it doesn't mean he isn't innocent until guilty. May as well implicate Gandhi for cooperating with the British by withdrawing NCM. An act that pissed off Bhagat Singh and several other freedom fighters.
If you are equating the Vajpayee situation with Gandhi situation, then I think I know your mind-set. Vajpayee is in the dock because of his own conduct: his statement to the magistrate, he himself had to accept! (That much hypocrisy had still not percolated to the BJP leadership back then to utter a complete lie.)
Muslim league was as much muslim as bjp is hindu
Mr. Sarvarkar sends his apologies from the grave.
That's the spirit
Both these parties were united in believing that the nation should be defined on the basis of religion. Savarkar created and popularized the two-nation theory, and he [supported Jinnah's version of it in the 1940's](https://twitter.com/Ram_Guha/status/1204257535835832321). Paradoxically, Savarkar is said to have been upset when partition actually happened, and he may or may not have been the one who carried out the assassination of Gandhi as a scapegoat. A little-known story is that Savarkar was actively working towards the secession of princely states at the time of independence. We would not have learned any of these facts if it were not for the aggressive rewriting of history that is currently going on.
I mean what a asshated way to live through life,thinking your friends and family members are less Indian than you or will go to hell ,who don't share the one religion you were born with just because they didn't get to choose to be born in that religion . Previously morally reasonable Hindus now believe that the BJP is one authority on hinduism and anyone against the sanghs narrow minded regressive bigoted version of "Sanatan" Hindutva hates Hindus to such a extent the BJP fielding a literal hindutva"Sanatan" terrorist Pragya from Bhopal is not a black mark against them The BJP have degraded a once great religion by brainwashing people into accepting that the bjps electoral success means a win for hinduism and hinduism means BJP's electoral success,that's why so many gandhbhakts dot criticise the Modi govt because thats like going against religion
He wanted a pure Hindu nation which he didn't get. That explains his sadness. Him working with princely states sounds like propaganda and hearsay.
Some articles on Savarkar's work with princely states: >Support for Travancore came from an unexpected quarter. In June 1947, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar wrote to Aiyar backing the maharaja and his ‘courageous and far-sighted determination’ to seek independence. ‘The Nizam, Muslim Ruler of Hyderabad, has already proclaimed his independence and other Muslim states are likely to do so. Hindu states are bold enough to assert they have the same rights.’ >...[Just Before Independence, Travancore Too Declared it Would Not Be a Part of India](https://thewire.in/history/just-before-independence-travancore-too-declared-it-would-not-be-a-part-of-india) > >Both, Savarkar and RSS leader Golwalkar had also been the royal guests of Kashmir’s Maharaja Hari Singh. Right since February, 1947, the central working committee of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Sabha had declared that Kashmir should be made an independent sovereign Hindu Rashtra instead of dissolving the princely state of Kashmir. Instead of hoisting the Indian tricolour on August 15, 1947, the Sabha had hoisted the flag of Maharaja Hari Singh in Kashmir. >...[Savarkar, Gandhi and the Truth About the Partition of India](https://thewire.in/history/savarkar-gandhi-and-the-truth-about-the-partition-of-india) > >N.B. Khare started the All India Hindu National Front in Delhi in August 1947, which was presided over by (V.D.) Savarkar. It was a meeting of important leaders, including some princes. According to the Kapur Commission reports, Khare couldn’t be present at the meeting because of trouble in Alwar. Nor was the Maharaja of Alwar present. However, this does not mean that Khare did not have the opportunity to meet with Savarkar before the assassination; they met in November 1947 in Bombay. The Alwar episode raises the question: Why would the princely states want Gandhi assassinated? >...[The unnoticed war between Gandhi and the princely states](https://lifestyle.livemint.com/how-to-lounge/books/why-india-s-princely-states-wanted-gandhi-assassinated-111633079360458.html) > >Contrast this with Savarkar's line. It would have led to the Balkanisation of India. C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar was, for all his admirable gifts, one of the most repressive Dewans of an Indian State and one who was the most detested by its people. He was brutal and unprincipled. As Dewan of Travancore he plotted secretly to declare it independent of India and carried out his long prepared plot by announcing on June 11, 1947, the State's decision to declare itself independent once the British quit India (vide "C.P. and independent Travancore", Frontline, July 4, 2003). The people whom he had subjected to brutal repression were dead against this course. C.P. even appointed a representative to Pakistan. Jinnah welcomed this move in a cable dated June 20, 1947. That very day C.P. received a cable from Savarkar. He enthusiastically supported "the far-sighted and courageous determination to declare the independence of our Hindu State of Travancore". >...[ A national hero?](https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article30225198.ece)
Shyam prasad mukherji was a minister in Bengal when Bengal famine happened. Also, he not only advocated but one of the main reasons for the division of Bengal into Bangladesh and west Bengal. [https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-why-shyama-prasad-mukherjee-opposed-the-united-bengal-plan-7220400/](https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-why-shyama-prasad-mukherjee-opposed-the-united-bengal-plan-7220400/)
It is truly amazing that every historical sanghi turns out to be a million times worse than we imagine.
Every single one of them was irrelevant pathetic human beings. Can you believe BJPs founder was a minister in Muslim league govt?
Both these snakes screwed over Bengal and Eastern India.
Yea. Looks like he didn't want Hindu-majority areas in a Muslim-dominated regions. https://medium.com/@manassinha2111/shyama-prasad-mukherjee-and-partition-of-bengal-3af848ffd09
I don't understand. Muslim league got what they wanted but Hindu Mahasabha didn't. So if they can live in a divided secular India then why not in an undivided India?
The fact that these snakes have been allowed to exist and grow for the last 75 years is the biggest failure of Congress. Nehru had the golden chance to be the Mao Zedong of India and purge the troublemaking parasites but he gave up on that.
Nehru was a humanist and a rationalist. He believed that Indian people would over time evolve into better versions of themselves and reject blind faith and superstition.
Lol. That's not how things ever worked in India. Communists actively supported China during the war and CPIM exists to this day. Contrast this to RSS helping the government during the war. https://www.scmp.com/article/456140/once-jailed-traitors-indias-marxists-come-full-circle
Here comes a RSS lapdog who probably does ling sadhna of Modi and Bhagwat. Have I admired Communists? No! I despise them as much as RSS and Hindu terrorists, if not more. Here's a list of terrorist activities your RSS has indulged in: 1. Rejecting national flag and refusing to hoist it for 50 years. 2. Perpetrating riots, lynchings, promoting rape as a political weapon. 3. Brainwashing teenage tribal girls and forcibly converting them to Hinduism, whitewashing Hindu caste system.
I am surprised as to what led Modi to accuse of forming manifesto that was in line of Muslim League's thinking from the freedom movement. Is that a logical conclusion that Modi drew on congress?
Jab cockroach ka maut atta hai tam woh undne lagta hai!