maniac Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 Let me take the examples of 2 countries I have lived in all my life India and U.S.A----People always complain about the govt,politicians,constitution etc but I think it is about time we should be more appreciative of our politicians for atleast keeping things to gether. Let me list a few countries that have either been brought down by Civil war or change in leadership style-haven't they always been subject of instability... I obviously cannot back up statements with concrete statistics and hopefully some of the knowledgable posters on this forum can add value but For eg;Pakistan:Cyclical-Army takes over Civilian govt folowed by civilian govt reinstated,countless coups,trying to alter constitution etc etc.We may make fun of this but everytime a change has happened trying to fix the way affairs are run,the country has furthered suffered isn't it? Afghanistan: From what I heard or read when they were still a Monarchy was AFG as bad as it is now....but civil war,Radicalism,rise of communism etc has made this the most dangerous place on earth....did rebellion help or change help??? Russia: Failure of an ideology has reduced this from a superpower towhat it is today....enough said Iraq: I still have mixed feelings about the war because one hand it eliminated a tyrant like S.H which is always good but at the same time left the country in tatters Egypt:well how many of us would have like to tour Egypt say 3 years back to now???The uprising might have been something the people wished for but now uncertainity looms over it's very future. Iran: Don't know if the people here are really happy or not but from of the outsider's perspective Iran looks a better place to live in before the revolution than it is now. Also would like to add all the other countries part of the Arab Spring. This brings me to the point of this thread,so many times we crave for change or we wish for a dictator or some kind of a revolt to bring down congress or BJP to change India's future but I beleive more often than not it is good to leave things the way they are
Prakat Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 Just two - The French Revolution and the American Revolution. These two went on to create two different models of the modern state that most developing countries draw from today.
Lurker Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 Let me take the examples of 2 countries I have lived in all my life India and U.S.A----People always complain about the govt,politicians,constitution etc but I think it is about time we should be more appreciative of our politicians for atleast keeping things to gether. Let me list a few countries that have either been brought down by Civil war or change in leadership style-haven't they always been subject of instability... I obviously cannot back up statements with concrete statistics and hopefully some of the knowledgable posters on this forum can add value but For eg;Pakistan:Cyclical-Army takes over Civilian govt folowed by civilian govt reinstated,countless coups,trying to alter constitution etc etc.We may make fun of this but everytime a change has happened trying to fix the way affairs are run,the country has furthered suffered isn't it? Afghanistan: From what I heard or read when they were still a Monarchy was AFG as bad as it is now....but civil war,Radicalism,rise of communism etc has made this the most dangerous place on earth....did rebellion help or change help??? Russia: Failure of an ideology has reduced this from a superpower towhat it is today....enough said Iraq: I still have mixed feelings about the war because one hand it eliminated a tyrant like S.H which is always good but at the same time left the country in tatters Egypt:well how many of us would have like to tour Egypt say 3 years back to now???The uprising might have been something the people wished for but now uncertainity looms over it's very future. Iran: Don't know if the people here are really happy or not but from of the outsider's perspective Iran looks a better place to live in before the revolution than it is now. Also would like to add all the other countries part of the Arab Spring. This brings me to the point of this thread,so many times we crave for change or we wish for a dictator or some kind of a revolt to bring down congress or BJP to change India's future but I beleive more often than not it is good to leave things the way they are Why go that far when you can find examples home? Didnt Indira Gandhi impose emergecy in India in late 70s? Didnt Jayaprakash Narayan led a fierce opposition to the same ending up with Indira booted out of power? Yes it works.
maniac Posted February 27, 2012 Author Posted February 27, 2012 Why go that far when you can find examples home? Didnt Indira Gandhi impose emergecy in India in late 70s? Didnt Jayaprakash Narayan led a fierce opposition to the same ending up with Indira booted out of power? Yes it works. I would probably equate that to say something like the Nixon Scandal...there was a huge backlash and he was ousted fro power infact the first U.S president to be impeached I guess...but that wasn't like a rebellion that changed the course of the country Similarly,Emergency did not alter any course of Indian history....it may be a chapter in Indian politics but not something that changed the country forever,Infact Didn't she rule for another term after re-gaining her post??? The incidents I mentioned above were reflection of people's angst or drastic changes made by external factors which altered the very functioning of those countries. Pravin has made some good points about the American and the French revolution
1983-2011 Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 it all depends on the citizens of the individual country where the revolution has taken place! you can't say that Iran revolution has been failure if majority of the citizens in that country like it.
1983-2011 Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 in egypt, the old army has still got majority of the power, we'll have to wait till the presidential election is done and give it few more years for them to rebuild the country, same goes to libya and tunisia
Clarke Posted February 27, 2012 Posted February 27, 2012 we should be more appreciative of our politicians for atleast keeping things to gether. There's nothing they collectively did to 'keep things together'. One has to admire the good ones and hold the others accountable. A corrupt politician will not face the gun for the sake of democracy if the Army decides not to follow the constitution. An incompetent politician may be pro-democracy but that's hardly admirable considering the power & responsibilities of the job. You can appreciate the common citizens for not revolting, i.e. those not supporting the Maoists. So there's the rebellion we face, hopefully that shall not work.
yoda Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Well, our independence movement itself was an uprising against the then rulers. US civil rights movement is another example of a necessary and successful rebellion. South African blacks against the ruling govt is one more instance.
Mariyam Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 What does 'worked' mean? From the p.o.v of the rebels/revolutionaries/freedom fighters I can't recall even one rebellion/revolution/change going how they planned it. Pravin mentions the French revolution, but the direct fall out of the French Revolution was Napoleon and many years of war. Can't really say that revolution achieved its listed objectives. Yes they got rid of a debauched ruler, but got a warmonger in his place. Ditto with the Russians. They got rid of the oppressing Czar only to be oppressed by the Communists for many decades. Only the American war of Independence and the Indian independence struggle have resulted in societies ( to some extent) that the freedom fighters wanted to create. I'm talking about the immediate aftermath.
Prakat Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 Hi Mariyam, I wouldn't call Napoleon a direct fallout of the Revolution. Did Napoleon benefit from the state of upheaval that a revolution naturally brings about? Yes. But it wasn't the revolution that led directly to Napoleon. It was Napoleon who through bluster and political machinations became first consul and then emperor. As in today's match, Sri Lankan fans would be wrong in blaming their team for the loss, it was Virat who came in and took the game away from them. It was not given away or SL did not play themselves into a loss. What the revolution did succeed in doing was acquaint the people with enlightened political thought, republicanism and the three ideals of the French Revolution, so far unknown, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Before the French Revolution, there was no concept of equality, there was only reverence and deference to status - failure to adhere to this norm would lead to certain death. People began to see themselves differently and felt differently about their position. Fraternity was another radical idea at that time. Ordinary people did not see themselves as pitted against each other for the favours of the Nobility - often the only way to ensure stability for the family. They instead found a way to bond and find common ground amongst themselves. And liberty of course, was the crowning glory of the revolution.
Prakat Posted February 28, 2012 Posted February 28, 2012 ^ Ok! I edited that post to elaborate a little more :regular_smile:
Recommended Posts