Jump to content

Adults crying - Sissy or Passion


1983-2011

Recommended Posts

lol Bhagat Singh>Gandhi British left due to strong losses in WW2 not this Gandhi and his peaceful protes bs
What was wrong there? He was spot on there I think. Gandhiji's contributions are highly overrated IMHO. He was a great man, but not one because of which we got our independence. Although I agree that dragging gandhiji in this thread makes no sense :P
This is the problem with aajkal ke chokres, have no sense of history and then go about advertising their ignorance. Gaurav can you explain how anmol was spot on? Cite references and examples because I think we need to re-write history Anmol why would British leave because of losses in WW2 when India was still as cash cow and a source of income? Doesnt make sense Plus I have to laugh loudly at people who think random acts of violence like Bhagat Singh's would have dented British confidence. They had the most advanced weapons when Indian 'freedom fighters' had desi tamanchas. Gandhiji was able to unite the whole of India into a common cause the likes of which was never seen before. He was able to take the Indian cause onto a world stage and bring international pressure of the British. There were a lots of manuoring behind the scenes. The British would never have taken a humiliating loss, so force would never have worked against them. Its was the justness of Gandhiji and the unity of India which caused the British to leave
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the problem with aajkal ke chokres, have no sense of history and then go about advertising their ignorance. Gaurav can you explain how anmol was spot on? Cite references and examples because I think we need to re-write history Anmol why would British leave because of losses in WW2 when India was still as cash cow and a source of income? Doesnt make sense Plus I have to laugh loudly at people who think random acts of violence like Bhagat Singh's would have dented British confidence. They had the most advanced weapons when Indian 'freedom fighters' had desi tamanchas. Gandhiji was able to unite the whole of India into a common cause the likes of which was never seen before. He was able to take the Indian cause onto a world stage and bring international pressure of the British. There were a lots of manuoring behind the scenes. The British would never have taken a humiliating loss, so force would never have worked against them. Its was the justness of Gandhiji and the unity of India which caused the British to leave
++ Sure, Bhagat Singh was a martyr and all that but IMHO people saying "British left because of his actions" is utter BS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

++ Sure, Bhagat Singh was a martyr and all that but IMHO people saying "British left because of his actions" is utter BS.
I am very sure no one said that. No one is trying to undermine Gandhi here. Its just that not ALL the credit goes to him. Bhagat singh also did something and it should also be recognized. That's all . :smile:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very sure no one said that. No one is trying to undermine Gandhi here. Its just that not ALL the credit goes to him. Bhagat singh also did something and it should also be recognized. That's all . :smile:
+++ For me, Bhagat Singh was the bigger hero. He was young and determined... He sacrificed his life for the country in a same way what any young boy could have done for his country. His life funda was simple- eent ka jawaab pathar se do. Gandhiji was old and physically weak(coz of his age), so he had typical defensive Indian type ways of dealing with things. He had this funda of- if you get slapped on 1 cheek, then you have to get slapped on other cheek as well, which is quite hard to understand and implement. Maybe thats why, Bhagat Singh is more popular among youngsters and his life asools are easier to implement....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+++ For me, Bhagat Singh was the bigger hero. He was young and determined... He sacrificed his life for the country in a same way what any young boy could have done for his country. His life funda was simple- eent ka jawaab pathar se do. Gandhiji was old and physically weak(coz of his age), so he had typical defensive Indian type ways of dealing with things. He had this funda of- if you get slapped on 1 cheek, then you have to get slapped on other cheek as well, which is quite hard to understand and implement. Maybe thats why, Bhagat Singh is more popular among youngsters and his life asools are easier to implement....
Which is exactly the kind of ****ed up mentality kids nowadays have. I am not trying to take anything away from Bhagat Singh, he was one of the bravest man ever BTW, Gandhi's mentality was anything but defensive, in fact each of his plans was very very agressive and took on the british were it hurt the most. From non-corperation to the salt satyahgarh all the moves were agressive. Just because he did not physically attack anyone does not mean that he was not agressive, he was the one man who took the british empire on also on bhagat you are doing a dis-service if you take the eenth ka jabaab pathar literally. When they burst the bomb in the assembly he did not intend to kill anyone, it was a smoke bomb. Even in the prison, he was fasting until death and used mostly peaceful method of protests. To view him as an icon of violence is the biggest dis-service to his bravery Plus I would like to tell you, that it takes the biggest bravery to turn the other cheek and protest bravely than hit someone back in return. Thats why on the road you will see even 12-13 year olds hitting someone back. Hitting back is the most natural animal and instinctive reaction, nothing brave or agressive about it. Also I have heard kids say that times have changed for the worse now and Gandhi's philosopy doesnt work. Feck that. Times were a 100 times harder in British India where even a dissent caused you to be whipped or put in prison. Kids have it so easy nowadays
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...