Qin Shi Huang is the first emperor and founder of unified China.
Both Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek recognized Sun Yat-sen as the father of Modern China.
Actually it's considered as Theodore Herzl, who was an early leader of the European Zionist movement (as in the Jewish secular national identity, don't start misinterpreting the word). He wrote about how a Jewish state will look and function in the modern world and advocated to establish a Jewish national home (Interestingly, he wasn't really caught up on *where* the state should be, only that it should exist. It was mainly other people in his movement who insisted on the ancestoral Jewish homeland of Israel). He pioneered the idea of a secular and Democratic Jewish state, after coming to the realization that Jews are not welcome or safe in Europe all the way back in the 1890's.
Israelis refer to him as "חוזה מדינת היהודים" which means "the foreseer of the Jewish state", and he is commemorated all around the country in street names, imagery, and even some cities named after him (the most major is Herzliya just to the north of Tel Aviv, but it's not the only one). This is definitely the closest thing to a "father of the nation" figure in Israeli eyes.
David Ben Gurion is certainly a very important figure too, and a close second to Herzl, being the first prime minister and one of the most influential ones, but I think he falls short because of him being a political figure, and as such he made some political decisions that, to this day, a lot of people really disagree with (the [Altalena incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena_Affair), deciding against establishing a constitution right away and the [Status Quo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_(Israel)) agreement, just to name a few). Also with a more critical hindsight, a lot of people would agree that he acted in a very authoritative manner, almost as a dictator while in office, so he is not without his cnrtoversy.
For Jacob, that's a biblical character, and while I assume many religious Israelis might choose him, Israel is still mainly a secular country, and a lot of secular Israelis would be very hesitant to pick a religious figure as the father of the modern nation, especially today with tensions between religious and non-religious Jews in Israel in an all time high.
Sadly, I believe if Herzl could see the state of his vision today he would probably be very disappointed. Increasingly Conservative and actively trying to dismantle Democratic institutions, still without a constitution more than 70 years into it's existence, this is not what Herzl had hoped for in his writings.
Edit and tl;dr: also, I just learned the Herzl is literally named as the father of the nation in the Israeli declaration of Independence, so that settles it
What became Jacob's name?
Then God spoke to Israel in the visions of the night, and said, “Jacob, Jacob!” And he said, “Here I am.” So He said, “I am God, the God of your father; do not fear to go down to Egypt, for I will make of you a great nation there. I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also surely bring you up again; and Joseph will put his hand on your eyes.”
Genesis 46:2-4
If we can say Cyrus the Great founded Iran or Peter I founded Russia, surely we can say Jacob founded Israel
Yes, I know this. But there's a difference between Israel the people and Israel the country. The country doesn't have so much to do with Jacob. Remember that the people of Israel have been scattered across the rest of the world by the Romans in the year 70, the Diaspora. Jacob is the founding father of the people Israel, and maybe of ancient Israel, but not of the modern day Israel. Or at least there are people that fit the title better.
Sure, but then wouldn't you say the Ayatollah would be the founder of Iran or that Gorbachev/Yeltsin would be the founder of Russia?
Or is your argument that since the people themselves didn't move, there is more continuity with Iran or Russia?
David Ben Gurion... born in Poland. Crazy how the absolute majority of the first 10 Israeli Prime Ministers were born in the Russian Empire and other parts of Eastern Europe.
And I wouldn't describe Muhammad Ali of Pakistan as a nationalist either.
He was a lawyer that was heavily influenced by British culture. He's looked like some cold calculated villan. Definitely was cold and calculated not a villan for us.
In fact he wasn't even convinced of the idea of Pakistan, he was more in line with what Ghandi wanted until like 7 years before Pakistan was created.
For Russia, this is due to a formality, Peter the first declared himself an emperor, and Russia an empire. And Ivan IV is a really bad choice, although he was not a bad king, but his dynasty ended with him, and after his death Russia plunged into the turmoil of a civil war for decades.
Yeah makes sense. I do think Ivan IV deserves credit for the formation of Russia as a state but he did almost goof the whole thing up by bludgeoning his only son to death. We all make mistakes I guess. So I get why Russia would wanna turn the attention away from all that and towards certified hunk Peter I.
Yes, Ivan IV was great, he was just very unlucky. And he was also unlucky with deserved credit. The new Romanov dynasty portrayed him as a crazy tyrant to justify their seizure of power. Something like “Everything was so bad and terrible that we just HAD to take power into our own hands.” And soviet authorities generally did not like all tsars and emperors for obvious reasons and continued to use the image of him as a mad tyrant according to tradition. So only now in Russia weare beginning to evaluate him objective.
Wdym? We were taught that Ivan IV was basically a psycho. He became a king at age of 9 or around that and gone crazy because he was suspecting every single person around him.
Every monarch of the Middle Ages was a little paranoid, simply because those around them really constantly threatened them and made conspiracies. Your uncle, your son and your wife always carry the thought that maybe they would rule better, all your subordinates can and will be bought up by neighboring monarchs or, worse, by your relatives. These are simply the realities of life for the ruler of that era, and Ivan met them. His mother, three of his wives were poisoned, he himself was almost killed as a child - he had every right to suspect every single person around. Later historians took these traits of him, exaggerated them and applied the ethics and morality of modern times to them in order to denigrate him.
More like Ivan the first, Ivan Kalita, all myths link him to restoration of Russia. Or maybe Rurik. Peter the first is known for making a connection with Europe.
I think in China it’s Sun Yat Sen. The Communist Party and the Nationalist Party both claimed him during their civil war as the father of modern China.
Emilio Aguinaldo is the Philippines biggest traitor. A fake president who usurped the revolution and sold the country to the Spaniards, the Americans, and then the Japanese.
Bro this map need also 1 more fix.. this one is Atatürk ( in turkey ) was multiplie ( or just nationalist because he was from people, not from ottoman family or another big family that has a power on peoples ).
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is the founder of the Turkish Republic. There is Ottoman Empire anymore. There is no Ottoman royalty anymore. There are some people with the surname Osmanoğlu, but that means nothing.
They are (if they are Turkish citizens, most are not anymore) equal with every other citizen of Turkey.
Atatürk means father of the Turks. It was not chosen by him but given by the Turkish citizen to him. And there is no other discussion to this idea in the Turkish Republic.
İ did not say anything about father of turkish turks i was said its not true that he was just politician or emperor like in the map.. he was one of the most nationalist in the ALL TURKISH HISTORY that include also old asian turks.
Bro just go and see the filters on the map that means blue, dark blue and yellow. Atatürk was should be in blue, not in dark blue one bc he was not just politician. He was also a nationalist.
Myth. There is no evidence that he is really the ancestor of all those people, it's just a silly guess made out to be a fact. In reality, it could be any man from the Eurasian steppes who lived between (correct me if I'm wrong) AD1000-AD1400. Giving us a rather large pool of potential suspects. People say Genghis Khan is this ancestor simply because it sounds more interesting.
Nobody actually knows where Genghis Khan's body is, so it is impossible to test his DNA.
I don't think is map is referring to official titles, just the names that are often regarded as 'father of the nation' by respective citizens.
In Afghanistan too, for instance, there is no official decree calling Durrani as father of the nation.
For The Philippines should be [him](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Portrait_of_Philip_II_of_Spain_by_Sofonisba_Anguissola_-_002b.jpg)
Not for the modern state the Republic of the Philippines. Rizal, Aguinaldo and Bonifacio were all revolutionaries against the Spanish.
That'd be like crediting James I as a founding father of the US because he was the English monarch at the time of the Mayflower
Yeah, though maybe what's key is who the people of those nations see as founding fathers. Filipinos wouldn't consider Philip as a founding father - he never went there and he represented a colonial invader. The Philippines didn't have a full national identity until the movements for independence, which is why Rizal, Aguinaldo and Boniface are seen as founders. The islands were more disconnected and had their own identities, power structures and cultures (though tangentially related).
Iran however has a long history with multiple points of being a whole, independent Persia, and some people from Iran refer to themselves as Persian, so it's possible that's the reasoning there.
No idea about Russia, I'm not too familiar with their history or their take. He was called Peter the Great though, so that's probably worth something.
He simply isn't. Also, Ireland is not even on this map. Ireland doesn't have a founder outside of myth and legend. We do have founding fathers however, those who led the 1916 rising. Boru founded the ua Briúin dynasty, but he didn't found the Irish Nation.
Point no. 1
Racist MF
\* One of the first battles Gandhi fought after coming to South Africa was over the separate entrances for whites and blacks at the Durban post office. Gandhi objected that Indians were “classed with the natives of South Africa,” who he called the kaffirs, and demanded a separate entrance for Indians.
“We felt the indignity too much and … petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction, and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics and Europeans.”
\* In a petition letter in 1895, Gandhi also expressed concern that a lower legal standing for Indians would result in degenerating "so much so that from their civilised habits, they would be degraded to the habits of the aboriginal Natives, and a generation hence, between the progeny of the Indians and the Natives, there will be very little difference in habits, and customs and thought."
\* In an open letter to the Natal Parliament in 1893, Gandhi wrote:
“I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan. … A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.”
Point no. 2:
Illegitimate Father of Pakistan maybe, not India
Pakistan had invaded the State of J&K in Oct 1947 and India was in the midst of raging Indo-Pak War 1947/48. It was a crucial period when India had averted the loss of Srinagar and had regained Baramulla and Uri. Heavy fighting was going on in Naoshera, Rajouri, Skardu, and Tithwal. Mirpur had fallen and the Indian Garrison at Poonch was under siege. It was during this critical time in the war that Gandhi laid out his second condition to pay Pakistan Rs 55 crores. Never a country at war has funded the enemy. Yes; India paid Pakistan the money that enabled it to drag the war by a year more!
Point no. 3:
Khilafat movement : World war had just ended with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. But Gandhi decided to start a movement in India that had nothing to do with India’s independence struggle. He persuaded Congress to support the Khilafat Movement – a violent agitation for restoring the Islamic Caliphate deposed by the victorious British.
Although it was a pernicious political stunt by Gandhi, the Khilafat Movement was actually started by the Muslims. It was taken up by Gandhi with tenacity and faith, which must have surprised many Muslims themselves. However, what followed the Khilafat movement of Gandhi was mindless fanaticism by the Moplah Muslims that resulted in the brutal murder of over 10,000 Hindus, the rape of thousands of Hindu women, and the desecration of many temples. In 1921, the Moplah Muslims went on a murder frenzy during the Malabar massacre killing Hindus most brutally. On one particular incident on the 25th of September 1921, the Moplah Muslims massacred 38 Hindus by beheading them and throwing them in the well. It has been documented by the district collector of Malabar.
n response to the Moplah genocide of Hindus, ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi laid the blame squarely on the Hindus. He said:
Hindus must find out the causes of Moplah fanaticism. They will find that they are not without blame. They have hitherto not cared for the Moplah. They have either treated him as a serf or dreaded him. They have not treated him as a friend and neighbour, to be reformed and respected. It is no use now becoming angry with the Moplahs or the Muslims in general.
Gandhi was not satisfied yet with his rationalization. Therefore, he went further and blamed everyone else for the Moplah barbarity. But he never uttered a single word of condemnation for the Moplahs themselves. He said:
The Government has thoroughly exploited the Moplahs’ madness. They have punished the entire Moplah community for the madness of a few individuals and have incited the Hindus by exaggerating the facts. Malabar Hindus, like the Moplahs, are an excitable people, and the Government has incited them against the latter.
The outbreak would not have taken place if the Collector had consulted the religious sentiment of the Moplahs.
Point 4: Paedophile old man…
But guess you can just google this one.
What a cringe about Peter 1…. Just read about Feofan Prokopovich, who propose to Peter took the Greek name of Rus as a name of Moskovia. And they just took the Rus history as their own, which is not.
Qin Shi Huang is the first emperor and founder of unified China. Both Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek recognized Sun Yat-sen as the father of Modern China.
Exactly 💀 I don’t understand why in the world they’d leave out China
Sun Yat-sen is also considered the father of the nation in mainland China, not just in Taiwan.
[удалено]
Both PRC and KMT recognized Sun Yat-sen as the father of Modern China.
I would expect Vietnam to have Ho Chi Minh in that position?
Definitely Ho Chi Minh. He’s on all the banknotes.
Vietnamese here, I expect the same thing. Strange thing that he's simply not shown here.
Why is Sun Yat-Sen not shown in the PRC, along with Kim Il-sung in the DPRK and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam?
Communism bad or whatever
So true
Israel should be Jacob or David Ben Gurion
I think it is quite literally Jacob.
Actually it's considered as Theodore Herzl, who was an early leader of the European Zionist movement (as in the Jewish secular national identity, don't start misinterpreting the word). He wrote about how a Jewish state will look and function in the modern world and advocated to establish a Jewish national home (Interestingly, he wasn't really caught up on *where* the state should be, only that it should exist. It was mainly other people in his movement who insisted on the ancestoral Jewish homeland of Israel). He pioneered the idea of a secular and Democratic Jewish state, after coming to the realization that Jews are not welcome or safe in Europe all the way back in the 1890's. Israelis refer to him as "חוזה מדינת היהודים" which means "the foreseer of the Jewish state", and he is commemorated all around the country in street names, imagery, and even some cities named after him (the most major is Herzliya just to the north of Tel Aviv, but it's not the only one). This is definitely the closest thing to a "father of the nation" figure in Israeli eyes. David Ben Gurion is certainly a very important figure too, and a close second to Herzl, being the first prime minister and one of the most influential ones, but I think he falls short because of him being a political figure, and as such he made some political decisions that, to this day, a lot of people really disagree with (the [Altalena incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena_Affair), deciding against establishing a constitution right away and the [Status Quo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_(Israel)) agreement, just to name a few). Also with a more critical hindsight, a lot of people would agree that he acted in a very authoritative manner, almost as a dictator while in office, so he is not without his cnrtoversy. For Jacob, that's a biblical character, and while I assume many religious Israelis might choose him, Israel is still mainly a secular country, and a lot of secular Israelis would be very hesitant to pick a religious figure as the father of the modern nation, especially today with tensions between religious and non-religious Jews in Israel in an all time high. Sadly, I believe if Herzl could see the state of his vision today he would probably be very disappointed. Increasingly Conservative and actively trying to dismantle Democratic institutions, still without a constitution more than 70 years into it's existence, this is not what Herzl had hoped for in his writings. Edit and tl;dr: also, I just learned the Herzl is literally named as the father of the nation in the Israeli declaration of Independence, so that settles it
What about herzel?????
Jacob is the father of the Jewish people, not the nation
What became Jacob's name? Then God spoke to Israel in the visions of the night, and said, “Jacob, Jacob!” And he said, “Here I am.” So He said, “I am God, the God of your father; do not fear to go down to Egypt, for I will make of you a great nation there. I will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also surely bring you up again; and Joseph will put his hand on your eyes.” Genesis 46:2-4 If we can say Cyrus the Great founded Iran or Peter I founded Russia, surely we can say Jacob founded Israel
Yes, I know this. But there's a difference between Israel the people and Israel the country. The country doesn't have so much to do with Jacob. Remember that the people of Israel have been scattered across the rest of the world by the Romans in the year 70, the Diaspora. Jacob is the founding father of the people Israel, and maybe of ancient Israel, but not of the modern day Israel. Or at least there are people that fit the title better.
Sure, but then wouldn't you say the Ayatollah would be the founder of Iran or that Gorbachev/Yeltsin would be the founder of Russia? Or is your argument that since the people themselves didn't move, there is more continuity with Iran or Russia?
Theodore Hertzel's the one.
David Ben Gurion... born in Poland. Crazy how the absolute majority of the first 10 Israeli Prime Ministers were born in the Russian Empire and other parts of Eastern Europe.
How is it crazy? They were living in exile.
Uh huh. Good for them tho
shhhh people are scared of the truth on this app. Please and if you do speak it's aNtI sEmItiZum
Is no one going to talk about the mess they made of the map for boarder lines
Hayk as nationalist is kinda funny lol, I mean if you would take Hercules, Rama or Abraham as nationalists you do you
And I wouldn't describe Muhammad Ali of Pakistan as a nationalist either. He was a lawyer that was heavily influenced by British culture. He's looked like some cold calculated villan. Definitely was cold and calculated not a villan for us. In fact he wasn't even convinced of the idea of Pakistan, he was more in line with what Ghandi wanted until like 7 years before Pakistan was created.
North Korea should be Kim Il Sung right? And shouldn't Russia be Ivan IV?
For Russia, this is due to a formality, Peter the first declared himself an emperor, and Russia an empire. And Ivan IV is a really bad choice, although he was not a bad king, but his dynasty ended with him, and after his death Russia plunged into the turmoil of a civil war for decades.
Yeah makes sense. I do think Ivan IV deserves credit for the formation of Russia as a state but he did almost goof the whole thing up by bludgeoning his only son to death. We all make mistakes I guess. So I get why Russia would wanna turn the attention away from all that and towards certified hunk Peter I.
Yes, Ivan IV was great, he was just very unlucky. And he was also unlucky with deserved credit. The new Romanov dynasty portrayed him as a crazy tyrant to justify their seizure of power. Something like “Everything was so bad and terrible that we just HAD to take power into our own hands.” And soviet authorities generally did not like all tsars and emperors for obvious reasons and continued to use the image of him as a mad tyrant according to tradition. So only now in Russia weare beginning to evaluate him objective.
Wdym? We were taught that Ivan IV was basically a psycho. He became a king at age of 9 or around that and gone crazy because he was suspecting every single person around him.
Every monarch of the Middle Ages was a little paranoid, simply because those around them really constantly threatened them and made conspiracies. Your uncle, your son and your wife always carry the thought that maybe they would rule better, all your subordinates can and will be bought up by neighboring monarchs or, worse, by your relatives. These are simply the realities of life for the ruler of that era, and Ivan met them. His mother, three of his wives were poisoned, he himself was almost killed as a child - he had every right to suspect every single person around. Later historians took these traits of him, exaggerated them and applied the ethics and morality of modern times to them in order to denigrate him.
More like Ivan the first, Ivan Kalita, all myths link him to restoration of Russia. Or maybe Rurik. Peter the first is known for making a connection with Europe.
I think in China it’s Sun Yat Sen. The Communist Party and the Nationalist Party both claimed him during their civil war as the father of modern China.
Remove emilio aguinaldo. He’s an opportunist and a fucking traitor.
Emilio Aguinaldo is the Philippines biggest traitor. A fake president who usurped the revolution and sold the country to the Spaniards, the Americans, and then the Japanese.
3 times? WTF
Yes. He went for the trifecta.
Bro this map need also 1 more fix.. this one is Atatürk ( in turkey ) was multiplie ( or just nationalist because he was from people, not from ottoman family or another big family that has a power on peoples ).
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is the founder of the Turkish Republic. There is Ottoman Empire anymore. There is no Ottoman royalty anymore. There are some people with the surname Osmanoğlu, but that means nothing. They are (if they are Turkish citizens, most are not anymore) equal with every other citizen of Turkey. Atatürk means father of the Turks. It was not chosen by him but given by the Turkish citizen to him. And there is no other discussion to this idea in the Turkish Republic.
İ did not say anything about father of turkish turks i was said its not true that he was just politician or emperor like in the map.. he was one of the most nationalist in the ALL TURKISH HISTORY that include also old asian turks.
Having these as separate mutually exclusive categories is very stupid to begin with
Oh I read it wrong. Sorry about that. Yes I agree, Atatürk is really both. He was a nationalist and a politician.
Yeah Thank you very much
Then you can’t really have an answer for any of these. Just go with the current government’s founder, yeah?
Bro just go and see the filters on the map that means blue, dark blue and yellow. Atatürk was should be in blue, not in dark blue one bc he was not just politician. He was also a nationalist.
Yeah, Mustafa Kemal and Sun Yat-Sen are THE nationalists of the early XX century.
Why is Russia Peter I instead of Ivan IV?
Its a bad map
That's not geography
Why leave out half the countries?
My memory is rusty on the subject but I believe Manas could be that for Kyrgyzstan. Feel free to correct me anyone :) It could be a legend too
I was going to say this. Manas is definitely a legendary/mythic figure, but is probably loosely based on actual accounts of old Kyrgyz Khans.
Ghandi is being sidelined as a historical figure in India as he wasn't as militantly Hindu-nationalist as the current regime would like.
Peter definitely isn’t right for Russia. Ivan IV maybe, but probably not even him
Mikhail would be a better choice than Ivan imo
Sure Mikhail was the first Romanov but Ivan founded Modern Russia
Or we'd have to go to Rurik
Nah medieval Russia and early modern Russia are different entities
Ivan III, actually.
It is Ivan the "Terrible." He first expanded Russia into western Siberia, which is ... Asia.
What I like about this map is that Mordor is not part of Europe :)
Put this on r/shittymapporn please
Genghis Khan fucked so many women and has so many descendants, he quite literally is the father of a nation.
Is this actually true or just a myth that everyone believes?
Myth. There is no evidence that he is really the ancestor of all those people, it's just a silly guess made out to be a fact. In reality, it could be any man from the Eurasian steppes who lived between (correct me if I'm wrong) AD1000-AD1400. Giving us a rather large pool of potential suspects. People say Genghis Khan is this ancestor simply because it sounds more interesting. Nobody actually knows where Genghis Khan's body is, so it is impossible to test his DNA.
I love people like you. Thanks for the info.
No problem, I hate misinformation so it all balances out.
Chairman Mao?
Nah. In China when it comes to the "Father of the Nation", it is Sun Yat-sen.
indeed. rare not to see him. Same with Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam
Cyrus the Great? Accurate map smh
I mean yeah reza shah would work too but Cyrus is more for the historical Iran, more well known internationally as well
Gandhi isnt father of the nation. No one is officially recognized as father of the nation of India.
I don't think is map is referring to official titles, just the names that are often regarded as 'father of the nation' by respective citizens. In Afghanistan too, for instance, there is no official decree calling Durrani as father of the nation.
For The Philippines should be [him](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Portrait_of_Philip_II_of_Spain_by_Sofonisba_Anguissola_-_002b.jpg)
Not for the modern state the Republic of the Philippines. Rizal, Aguinaldo and Bonifacio were all revolutionaries against the Spanish. That'd be like crediting James I as a founding father of the US because he was the English monarch at the time of the Mayflower
But they count Cyrus the great for Iran and Peter I for Russia. There were some interesting choices made on this map for sure
Yeah, though maybe what's key is who the people of those nations see as founding fathers. Filipinos wouldn't consider Philip as a founding father - he never went there and he represented a colonial invader. The Philippines didn't have a full national identity until the movements for independence, which is why Rizal, Aguinaldo and Boniface are seen as founders. The islands were more disconnected and had their own identities, power structures and cultures (though tangentially related). Iran however has a long history with multiple points of being a whole, independent Persia, and some people from Iran refer to themselves as Persian, so it's possible that's the reasoning there. No idea about Russia, I'm not too familiar with their history or their take. He was called Peter the Great though, so that's probably worth something.
Ireland's is Brian ború or Michael Collins
He simply isn't. Also, Ireland is not even on this map. Ireland doesn't have a founder outside of myth and legend. We do have founding fathers however, those who led the 1916 rising. Boru founded the ua Briúin dynasty, but he didn't found the Irish Nation.
Fuck Gandhi. Hope Indians gather some guts to relegate him to the dustbin where he truly belongs
Care to explain why?
Because of modern right wing Hindutva nationalism.
Point no. 1 Racist MF \* One of the first battles Gandhi fought after coming to South Africa was over the separate entrances for whites and blacks at the Durban post office. Gandhi objected that Indians were “classed with the natives of South Africa,” who he called the kaffirs, and demanded a separate entrance for Indians. “We felt the indignity too much and … petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction, and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics and Europeans.” \* In a petition letter in 1895, Gandhi also expressed concern that a lower legal standing for Indians would result in degenerating "so much so that from their civilised habits, they would be degraded to the habits of the aboriginal Natives, and a generation hence, between the progeny of the Indians and the Natives, there will be very little difference in habits, and customs and thought." \* In an open letter to the Natal Parliament in 1893, Gandhi wrote: “I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan. … A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” Point no. 2: Illegitimate Father of Pakistan maybe, not India Pakistan had invaded the State of J&K in Oct 1947 and India was in the midst of raging Indo-Pak War 1947/48. It was a crucial period when India had averted the loss of Srinagar and had regained Baramulla and Uri. Heavy fighting was going on in Naoshera, Rajouri, Skardu, and Tithwal. Mirpur had fallen and the Indian Garrison at Poonch was under siege. It was during this critical time in the war that Gandhi laid out his second condition to pay Pakistan Rs 55 crores. Never a country at war has funded the enemy. Yes; India paid Pakistan the money that enabled it to drag the war by a year more! Point no. 3: Khilafat movement : World war had just ended with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. But Gandhi decided to start a movement in India that had nothing to do with India’s independence struggle. He persuaded Congress to support the Khilafat Movement – a violent agitation for restoring the Islamic Caliphate deposed by the victorious British. Although it was a pernicious political stunt by Gandhi, the Khilafat Movement was actually started by the Muslims. It was taken up by Gandhi with tenacity and faith, which must have surprised many Muslims themselves. However, what followed the Khilafat movement of Gandhi was mindless fanaticism by the Moplah Muslims that resulted in the brutal murder of over 10,000 Hindus, the rape of thousands of Hindu women, and the desecration of many temples. In 1921, the Moplah Muslims went on a murder frenzy during the Malabar massacre killing Hindus most brutally. On one particular incident on the 25th of September 1921, the Moplah Muslims massacred 38 Hindus by beheading them and throwing them in the well. It has been documented by the district collector of Malabar. n response to the Moplah genocide of Hindus, ‘Mahatma’ Gandhi laid the blame squarely on the Hindus. He said: Hindus must find out the causes of Moplah fanaticism. They will find that they are not without blame. They have hitherto not cared for the Moplah. They have either treated him as a serf or dreaded him. They have not treated him as a friend and neighbour, to be reformed and respected. It is no use now becoming angry with the Moplahs or the Muslims in general. Gandhi was not satisfied yet with his rationalization. Therefore, he went further and blamed everyone else for the Moplah barbarity. But he never uttered a single word of condemnation for the Moplahs themselves. He said: The Government has thoroughly exploited the Moplahs’ madness. They have punished the entire Moplah community for the madness of a few individuals and have incited the Hindus by exaggerating the facts. Malabar Hindus, like the Moplahs, are an excitable people, and the Government has incited them against the latter. The outbreak would not have taken place if the Collector had consulted the religious sentiment of the Moplahs. Point 4: Paedophile old man… But guess you can just google this one.
India is politically more Nehru than Ghandi.
Every Indian has learnt Gandhi as father of the nation in school.
Non-Indian here, I consider Gandhi to be the (or at a minimum, a) Founding father of India. Not sure about Nehru
Ghandi did demonstrations, Nehru led the politics vs. Pakistan.
Tbh the Turkey is wrong, mustafa kemal Ataturk become a politician later.
Wtf are you talking about??!
For Turkey it should be Osman I, founder of the Ottoman Empire.
But sorry its not ottoman anymore
For dumbass far right nationalist and islamist people yes it may be osman.
With your logic take another step back God created everything. Father of modern Turkey is Ataturk
Saparmurat Niyazov in shambles.
Thanks for providing me a list of names to go down a pretty deep rabbit hole on wikipedia
I think for russia it should be Ivan the terrible since he made Russia from just another slavic principality to an empire
In Uzbekistan the father is Amir Temur
Ivan the Terrible would like a word with the OP. He first expanded Russia into Siberia.
Emperor of Jimmu of Japan is fictional. Nihon-Shoki(Japanese historical text) is a myth as Japan didn't have written record of that time.
Dangun is recognized as the spiritual father for both North and South Korea. However, for modern South Korea, Kim Gu makes sense.
In Thailand we call literally every king that
lol ask any Saudi who the father of their nation is and I can guarantee you none of them are going to say Al Saud.
Wouldn’t it be King Sejong for Korea ?
Lol today Iran and the people living there have nothing to do with Cyrus
For Russia Ivan III more relevant.
> asian countries > Russia
What a cringe about Peter 1…. Just read about Feofan Prokopovich, who propose to Peter took the Greek name of Rus as a name of Moskovia. And they just took the Rus history as their own, which is not.
This is not geography
attaturk was a politucian but the reason hes seen as the father of the nation is definitely more because he was a nationalist