gs Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 It requires more courage to get thrashed without retaliating. It is the most easiest thing in the world to hit back at someone who has hit back at you. Al Queda, Taliban, etc are examples of organisations who use violence to retaliate against perceived injustice. Initially their cause might have been as just as say, Mandela's but becuase of the means they used, they are a threat to themselves and the world Do you really think that a country and its army, whcih fought the mighty Germans and Japan, would actually get scared of a handful of people wielding country made pistols and bombs? Really? Might would never have overcome the British. It was finally the people refusing to co-operate, whatever the cost, that did them in. It was the people getting united under one umbreally of India that did them in. Imaging most of a people of a huge country not co-operating with you. No way in the word you can rule them. The reason the world is in such a mess as its today is because we have more people like Bush who think that might is right. We have people like you who think physical strength is what makes people superior (By that logic mankind should have been at the bottoom of the evolution table). The reason is that we dont have leaders of the stature of Gandhi. Excellent post :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tapioca Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Do you really think that a country and its army, which fought and defeated the mighty Germans and Japanese, would actually get scared of a handful of people wielding country made pistols and bombs? Really? True. The Bristish had been dealing Bhagat Singh types since the start of the 19th century. They knew how to handle them, and they handled Bhagat Singh their way. It took nearly twenty years after Bhagat Singh's death for India to win freedom. What did the inspiration provided by his martyrdom achieve on the ground in this time ? A army on the lines that Subhash Chandrabose planned or organised guerilla attacks is a completely different proposition. But it could have succeeded only at a great cost to India and Indians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tapioca Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 British never had a good answer to Gandhi's tactics. It helped that the English were a civilized and lawful (if that is a correct word) people. They had their superiors to answer back home, and those superiors represented a democracy. They could not just murder a leader of the stature of Gandhi or Nehru and get away with it, especially when the Indian side were so vocal about being non-violent. Gandhi was a master of manipulating the media as well. Non-violence succeeds when it is used against people who are responsible and have something to lose by turning to violence. That was why Martin Luther King's movement also succeeded spectacularly. If it were in Germany, Gandhi would not have lived longed enough to finish the first day of his first Satyagraha. Today, the governments will tackle non-violence differently. In Iraq, for instance, a Gandhian leader could have led the people to fill the streets and block the movement of tanks non-violently, forcing the US army to either withdraw, or fire at the people. Both would have led to a media disaster. America's response would probably be : (a) create some sort of scandal to defame the Gandhian leader(s) (b) woo away the next level or leadership and get them to rebel against the leader © plug in a few of their people in the crowd to trigger violence, thus destroying whatever moral superiority the movement had. (d) assassinate the leader, then buy out the next level of leaders. The British succeeded only in (b) to a limited extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temujin Khaghan Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 gandhi was a weak person who conveyed the message " you can slap me, I will not hurt you" thank goodness Subhas Chandra Bose did not think lke that :winky: when extremists revolted, the british were able to stamp them like ants. when Gandhiji expressed his revolt through ahimsa, the british were not able to give a proper reply becoz...if they did so then there wouldnt be much difference between them and nazis in the world's viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViruRulez Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 when extremists revolted, the british were able to stamp them like ants. when Gandhiji expressed his revolt through ahimsa, the british were not able to give a proper reply becoz...if they did so then there wouldnt be much difference between them and nazis in the world's viewpoint. good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triam Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 The amount of crap in this thread is unbeleivable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 British never had a good answer to Gandhi's tactics. It helped that the English were a civilized and lawful (if that is a correct word) people. They had their superiors to answer back home' date=' and those superiors represented a democracy. They could not just murder a leader of the stature of Gandhi or Nehru and get away with it, especially when the Indian side were so vocal about being non-violent. Gandhi was a master of manipulating the media as well. Non-violence succeeds when it is used against people who are responsible and have something to lose by turning to violence. That was why Martin Luther King's movement also succeeded spectacularly.[/quote'] Very good point but also very debatable. People like Gandhi knew exactly how to garner the masses and also make them passionate about a cause. This passion they were able to raise was an improtant weapon because these people were ready to die for their causes. they were like a weapon ready to use or a time bomb. if anyone touched Gandhi, all hell would break lose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ram Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I am simply blown away by some of the comments in this thread. They show a complete lack of understanding among many of us as to what ‘courage’, ‘bravery’, ‘moral and mental fortitude’ constitute. For Gandhi to have done what he did, at the time when he did it, with the circumstances that were surrounding him back them, he must one unbelievably remarkable individual. Every now and then in human history, there comes someone who transcends all contemporary beliefs of right and wrong, moral and immoral lays a path for future generations to follow. Gandhi is one such individual. What we take for granted now, he fought for 80 years ago, a period when colonial empires were the norm, when slavery was still flourishing and when universal enfranchisement was but a mere dream. That he could mobilize and inspire millions of Indians at an age when there was no youtube or yahoo, internet or iphones, shows the power of his ideals. In today's world of hatred and distrust, we need more Gandhis and Mandelas, not Bhagat Singhs and Chandrasekhar Azad (no disrespect whatsoever to their legacies or their 'contribution' to our freedom struggle') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triam Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I am simply blown away by some of the comments in this thread. They show a complete lack of understanding among many of us as to what ‘courage’, ‘bravery’, ‘moral and mental fortitude’ constitute. For Gandhi to have done what he did, at the time when he did it, with the circumstances that were surrounding him back them, he must one unbelievably remarkable individual. Every now and then in human history, there comes someone who transcends all contemporary beliefs of right and wrong, moral and immoral lays a path for future generations to follow. Gandhi is one such individual. What we take for granted now, he fought for 80 years ago, a period when colonial empires were the norm, when slavery was still flourishing and when universal enfranchisement was but a mere dream. That he could mobilize and inspire millions of Indians at an age when there was no youtube or yahoo, internet or iphones, shows the power of his ideals. In today's world of hatred and distrust, we need more Gandhis and Mandelas, not Bhagat Singhs and Chandrasekhar Azad (no disrespect whatsoever to their legacies or their 'contribution' to our freedom struggle') NAah dude, did you check out Patel's biceps?? Gandhis biceps are stick thin, I dont respect him one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Do you really think that a country and its army, which fought and defeated the mighty Germans and Japanese, would actually get scared of a handful of people wielding country made pistols and bombs? Really? The easy answer is Yes. If the issue in question is British might, then let it be known that British might in India was limited to 30,000 soldiers. The rest of them were all Indian recruits, or the "support" troops that Indian princes were regularly lend to British. If these support was taken off British would have had to leave. In fact they did lose many of the battles even with this support (remember how Purvaiyas ran over British cantonment in 1857 before they fell to their own infighting and British re-inforcement from Pathans and Sikhs). However the great thing about Gandhi was his sheer philosphy. Today when you read about how Afgans are blood thirsty lot and can not be tamed, this man had actually turned them non-violent. There is this story of Kissa-khawani bazaar (modern day Peshawar) where British soldiers fired upon non-violent Pathans and the Lead Inspector then went on record suggesting only thing worse than a violent Pathan is a non-violent one. I personally think if Kashmiris today dropped their guns and simply went on hunger strike in Delhi or did no-cooperation in Srinagar even the most patriotic Indians(particularly the sane ones) would sit back and ask why is Indian Govt. ruling Kashmir if the locals dont want to be part of India. It is when they take on guns that it becomes very easy for rest of us to ignore it. kashmir is just an example of course, I am not suggesting it wants to break away. MK Gandhi? The greatest Indian we have ever produced. Period. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViruRulez Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 NAah dude' date=' did you check out Patel's biceps?? Gandhis biceps are stick thin, I dont respect him one bit.[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomainK Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 It requires more courage to get thrashed without retaliating. It is the most easiest thing in the world to hit back at someone who has hit you. Al Queda, Taliban, etc are examples of organisations who use violence to retaliate against perceived injustice. Initially their cause might have been as just as say, Mandela's but becuase of the means they used, they are a threat to themselves and the world Do you really think that a country and its army, which fought and defeated the mighty Germans and Japanese, would actually get scared of a handful of people wielding country made pistols and bombs? Really? Might would never have overcome the British. It was finally the people refusing to co-operate, whatever the cost, that did them in. It was the people getting united under one umbreally of India that did them in. Imagine most of a people of a huge country not co-operating with you. No way in the word you can rule them. The reason the world is in such a mess as its today is because we have more people like Bush who think that might is right. We have people like you who think physical strength is what makes people superior (By that logic mankind should have been at the bottoom of the evolution table). The reason is that we dont have leaders of the stature of Gandhi. The British were driven out by a thought (vichar in hindi). the thought that India was one uniformed country with united people. Small packets of violent resistance didnt make any difference but India speaking in one voice did. And the British dont need to justify Gandhi as a legend and the reason for independence. Our countrymen still remember what he stood for. My grandparent still swear on his name. Sadly, as we start taking our independence for granted, we also come up deriding a person for his weakness of non-violence, when actually thats the greatest strength a person can ever have The easy answer is Yes. If the issue in question is British might, then let it be known that British might in India was limited to 30,000 soldiers. The rest of them were all Indian recruits, or the "support" troops that Indian princes were regularly lend to British. If these support was taken off British would have had to leave. In fact they did lose many of the battles even with this support (remember how Purvaiyas ran over British cantonment in 1857 before they fell to their own infighting and British re-inforcement from Pathans and Sikhs). However the great thing about Gandhi was his sheer philosphy. Today when you read about how Afgans are blood thirsty lot and can not be tamed, this man had actually turned them non-violent. There is this story of Kissa-khawani bazaar (modern day Peshawar) where British soldiers fired upon non-violent Pathans and the Lead Inspector then went on record suggesting only thing worse than a violent Pathan is a non-violent one. I personally think if Kashmiris today dropped their guns and simply went on hunger strike in Delhi or did no-cooperation in Srinagar even the most patriotic Indians(particularly the sane ones) would sit back and ask why is Indian Govt. ruling Kashmir if the locals dont want to be part of India. It is when they take on guns that it becomes very easy for rest of us to ignore it. kashmir is just an example of course, I am not suggesting it wants to break away. MK Gandhi? The greatest Indian we have ever produced. Period. xxx I agree. Besides, every freedom revolution starts that way. The captor is always very strong and the captive very week. No freedom revolution ever started on equal strength. But history witnesses that no matter how weak the revolution happens to be in the beginning, it succeeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kooljatt Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 if i had a choice this is wat i would want 2 be...not Gandhi 4 sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kooljatt Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 or this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 ^^^ Obviosuly you would. Looks smart, has a prescence, was known for bravery had a commanding voice, etc, etc. Contrast this with a weak, old, half naked man who couldnt walk without a stick. Mordern Kids have to learn to look beyond the superficial (Not deriding Bhagat Singh in anyways) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 hello this site contain all the information about the legend National Hero of india and i am a big fan of him and i god many knowledge about his life style with the hel of this site its very nice to visit this site Lol, If its knowledge about Gandhi you are looking for, I am sure there are much better sites out there. But welcome to the site :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Blaster Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Let's talk about the great man who this thread is dedicated too and not compare to him somebody else. Also Stop saying if you had a choice you would pick Bhagat Singh over Gandhi. Nobody wants to die at the age of 24. Saying is easy, doing is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 :two_thumbs_up: if only gandhi was like this, he would have really terrified the firangis :yikes: Right, a terrifying pistol weaving 5' 5" grandpa is sure to drive away the Firangis back where they came from. :--D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambit Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 MTC summed the essence and impact of MKG in his post perfectly. MKG was the Sachin on the Independence Movement. Bhagat Singh and Subash Chandra Bose were like Dravid and Ganguly(supporting acts). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeXteR Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Hey guys some views about MK Gandhi by Anita Bose , daughter of S C Bose. It tells about some things about Gandhi and Bose. http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/may/11inter1.htm http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/may/12inter1.htm http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/may/13inter1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts