Gambit Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 Supposing you had been born between 1860 and 1910 in India in a well to do Indian family. Your father(or your mother) was either employed in the British machinery be it in the civil services/judiciary or running a successful business venture. Now you are almost 20 and the freedom movement is gathering momentum and Gandhi is slowly become a household name. Think of what you are like now, character wise(rash/impulsive/level headed etc etc). Do you think you would you have abandoned family/wealth/comfortable lifestyle and joined the freedom movement or would you have continued to study and then work as your parents did without really taking part in the movement?
Lurker Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 ^^ You almost mentioned the story of my Grandfather Gambo. He used to be a big shot before he ditched everything and jumped into the freedom movement. Personally I would say yes I would have become a part of the movement. I know its easy to say and all but I maintain that the greatest leaders we produced were around that time and if you have a sincere conviction you would be dragged(into the struggle). One reason why people do not find identity with a cause is the lack of strong leaders. But yes to answer your question I would have dived right in.
Dhondy Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 I don't know what I would have done. No doubt, I'd have been inspired by the writings of the great poets of that generation, the sacrifice of the freedom fighters, and would have wanted to identify with them. On the other hand, I can be pretty selfish when it suits me, and a little voice inside me would have said, "Don't ruin your career. Don't risk your life. Take the easy way out and become a civil servant or a doctor". There were a number of great patriots who didn't rail against the British, but contributed greatly to India's development. Jamshedji Nusserwanji Tata founded TISCO at Sakchi, Jamshedpur in 1907- look where it is now. His relative, JRD Tata, flew the first mail-plane from Bombay to Karachi in 1933...and went on to found Indian Airlines. Some would say they were Anglophiles who used the system put in place by the British to achieve their life ambitions. Would you condemn them? They may not have inspired a 1000 Khudiram Boses, but they certainly put food on the table of numerous compatriots and their descendants.
Lurker Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 There were a number of great patriots who didn't rail against the British, but contributed greatly to India's development. Jamshedji Nusserwanji Tata founded TISCO at Sakchi, Jamshedpur in 1907- look where it is now. His relative, JRD Tata, flew the first mail-plane from Bombay to Karachi in 1933...and went on to found Indian Airlines. Some would say they were Anglophiles who used the system put in place by the British to achieve their life ambitions. No I wouldn't call them Anglophiles Dhondy. Jamshed Tata was greatly driven by an economic and self-sufficient India. And this drive was fuelled every few months by the rampant adversity than an Indian businessman faced vis a vis his English counterpart. I would have to dig up info but I am sure I have read of incidences(at hand of British) which only strengthened the drive in Tatas mind about establishing world class institutions in India. And dont forget that some of his great friends - Ferozshah Mehta and Dadabhai Naoroji were one of first advocates for Indian struggle movement. But yes the involvment of TATA was not as direct as that of say GD Birla. The latter worked directly with Gandhi, the former worked towards Indian self-sufficiency. xxx
Ram Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 I would have certainly participated in the movement , but I am at a loss to decide whether i would have taken the violent or non-violent path. ' As much as this sounds a bit ridiculous , I belong to the school of thought that thinks that Insurgents attacking soldiers/police of an occupying power is not actually terrorism and constitutes a legitimate freedom struggle. Of course , whether the occupying power is there for the good or the bad is something left to the readers' discretion. Beware , attacking innocent civilians is totally condemnable and should never be done. But if you are a soldier/any agent of the occupying power , you put yourself in line for attack, that is inevitable. Somehow , the tales of Bhagat Singh , Chandrasekhar Azad , Rajguru inspire me more than that Gandhi and other freedom fighters who took the non-violent route.
Lurker Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 As much as this sounds a bit ridiculous , I belong to the school of thought that thinks that Insurgents attacking soldiers/police of an occupying power is not actually terrorism and constitutes a legitimate freedom struggle. Nothing ridiculous about it at all. How do you think British ruled over India? By non-violence? Personally I would say that non-violence is very tough, and hence very hard to understand. I mean we debate on MB without even knowing others and get pi$$ed. Imagine getting kicked and hit upon by an occupying force, telling you that you are an inferior lot, that you can not drink for same tap, pay taxes without benefits etc etc. It is only natural people will get violent. Non-violence is the greatest philosphy simply because it is so tough. But yes if you have that kind of moral courage you can take upon any adversary. xxx
Lurker Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 Only if all parties concerned understand the concept of shame .... the moment you try it on a party that doesnt subscribe to shame ... you will suffer huge losses . Not sure if your point has any merit. For starters there are only two parties here(and not all parties). One that practises non-violence, second against which the non-violence means is used(as protest etc). What you, as a non-violent practioner, can do is to take care of your side of the equation and not resort to violence no matter what the other party dishes out. And if you somewhere in the skirmish you do break your philosphy then it is not non-violence anymore. Indeed this is what happened when Gandhi pulled back his non-violent protests after Chauri chaura kand. By the way I am curious with your sense of shame dictum, where were you going with that? xxx
Predator_05 Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 I am an opportunist, so my allegiances probably would have been to the Raj. If my life was comfortable and i was making a decent amount of money, the movement wouldn't have affected me that greatly; the result of the freedom struggle would have been inconsequential.
Lurker Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 ^^ Thats a bug in your line of reasoning. In my line of reasoning its not a bug in the first place. When you go on the path of non-violent surely you take that route because of inherent beleif in yourself and the fact that no matter what is thrown at you, you shall not budge away from that line. Look at it this way. If the other party is amiable, has a sense of shame etc., then what is the big deal about non-violent philosphy anyway? You protest against someone that understands and in turn gets ashamed? Isnt that a major bug in your philosphy right there. As for three parties I am not sure of the relevance. Whats your point here?
Lurker Posted November 13, 2007 Posted November 13, 2007 Except that in my book I need to emerge the winner or at the very least not lose much even i couldnt gain anything out of it ... Okay so can you name me a few struggles that focussed on non-violence and did not emerge winner eventually? How do you know if the other party subscribes to shame ? There are two possibilities. A) Your adversary has no sense of shame. In which case as per you, you are doomed. B) He has a sense of shame. In which case my assertion is that it would be a simple situation to be in anyway. Basically people line up outside the adversary office, he is shamed and all's well. So when has it worked like that? I didnt get that ... Use the same example as up above. What would be tougher - Standing opposed to a person who doesnt have any sense of shame? Or standing against someone who does? What in your opinion will require greater courage? Relevance being the other 2 parties had conflicting interests to our own in those days .... yes we can all hide behind the technicalities that ML was part of India and all that but in reality it was never quite that ... No there is no technicality here really. If you look at the evolution of this thread you have been the one to bring in ML etc, most of us were not even worried about ML. And yes in larger scheme of things I dont think ML's contribution towards India's history is anything of note till late 30s or so. xxx
Lurker Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 Point is not of courage or lack of it ... point is what is the best way to acheive your goal ... and in that scenario while dealing with parties known for being brutal and utterly devoid of any shame you have more than every right to deal with them in a manner that gives you the best results with minimal damage .... Which is the reason why you shall not be able to understand non-violence. Simply because for you it is always a case of Ends justify the means. Unless I am mistaken I am not sure how else to read "what is best way to achieve your goal". So a question back at you - Do you beleive in Ends justifying the means? Biggest one is the Jalianwala Bagh ... there was not even as much as a apology that came from the firangis ... and infact even today the scumbag is a decorated bonafide war hero ... while the Sikh groups that are fighting against that keep getting shafted (or so it was the last time i read about it a long time back) Did you UNDERSTAND my question at all? Here is what I asked - Okay so can you name me a few struggles that focussed on non-violence and did not emerge winner eventually. Now Jallianwallah Bagh was a part of the freedom struggle, it was NOT the entire struggle in itself. Ultimately India won freedom struggle largely thanks to non-violence. So not sure how your example is valid at all? Do you have another example to support your argument? Very rarely ... so why bother with the risk ? Its not like the adversary in this case will just admonish you and let you go ... you are talking about lives and destiny of a nation. And why not bother with the risk? In the end non-violence is the tool that basically changed history. Could you care to remind me of a few heroes who are far removed from the policy of non-violence and enjoy the same stature in world's history as those that do? I would be interested if you could find me bigger men than Gandhi or Mandela. xxx
PaiN_KiLLeR Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 If I put myself in that situation I think I would have decided to pursue my studies and become a civil servant. As of now, I am just not prepared to put my life on line for any damn thing in this world, other than my family. But then again, the atmosphere was so charged up in those days ... an inspirational speech by a great leader could make you do things you might have never even dared to dream of.
Bongosamaj Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 and in this case its freedom from foriegn rule so hell ya ... do whatever it takes to get our righ Interesting then, that you condemn HAMAS and other Palestinian groups for doing whatever it takes to get their people free and set up a country. I am sorry, but Gandhi and Mandela are the most categoric example of non-violence working in the long run. As far as last century goes, non-violence has won freedom for far more people than violent means, so this whole 'non-violence doesnt work' line is a categoric falsehood.
Bongosamaj Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 As to the topic of this thread- its a tough question. Suffice to say, i will NOT go out and demonstrate or pick up a gun and go fight the british- I have no desire to get killed senselessly or for patriotic reasons, plus, i am not a soldier, despite my affinity to guns. The way i see it, if i wanted to contribute to the independence struggle, i'd be far more valuable as a logistics guy than a grunt demonstrating & getting shot at or arrested. So, if were to do anything, i'd be the guy who balances the books, takes care of supply, does the planning,etc. for the azadi gang. But on the other hand, i might just be inclined to flee with my family & loved ones. My priority is my loved ones/family first, everyone/everything else second,including India- and for that, i apologize to no-one, neither do i feel i have an obligation to. The world is a big place and very diverse- i am happy to find my corner in it and live as a free man, spreading/living in whatever culture i choose to adopt/bring with me. You can be whatever you want to be- whether you are an Indian or a Russian or a Chinese- its basically purely chance and due to accident of birth- something I have no control over, neither does anyone else. A bit ridiculous for someone to expect me to die for India just coz i was accidentally born in India to Indian parents...or so i see it. So what would i've done ? I dunno - i might've fleed, i might've positioned myself as a logistics guy for some independence-related group ( provided they wernt violent terrorists). But i certainly wouldn't have put my life in jeopardy needlessly, like demonstrating/lobbing bombs in the parliament or slogan-chanting. That'd be a definite waste of my talents.
zubinpepsi Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 aah Bongo ur back.. good to see u again Mind visiting this thread http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=64323&page=2 :D
Gambit Posted November 14, 2007 Author Posted November 14, 2007 ^^ You almost mentioned the story of my Grandfather Gambo. He used to be a big shot before he ditched everything and jumped into the freedom movement. Max respect to him. It would have been such a tough choice for him explaining his decision to family/relatives and also given how comfortable his lifestyle would have been. Personally I would say yes I would have become a part of the movement. I know its easy to say and all but I maintain that the greatest leaders we produced were around that time and if you have a sincere conviction you would be dragged(into the struggle). One reason why people do not find identity with a cause is the lack of strong leaders. But yes to answer your question I would have dived right in. I would also like to think that I would have joined the movement. As with many young men in those days, peer influence would have also been a major cause for them jumping headlong into the struggle for independence. But at the back of my mind, I might have had the nagging feeling that I am sacrificing my career for something that is probably not guaranteed in my lifetime. Dhondy gave a great example of JRD. Do you guys think he was considered a brown noser and a 'gora sahib' for not helping fellow Indians explicitly in the movement by ordinary people?
coffee_rules Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 How many of you think that it is 'patriotic' to stay back in India in present time and fight it out there rather than being 'unpatriotic' and have flown out for greener pastures?
Guest dada_rocks Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 Only if all parties concerned understand the concept of shame .... the moment you try it on a party that doesnt subscribe to shame ... you will suffer huge losses . Precisely why it failed against islamic marauders and greats like Teg bahadur lost wasted their lives. Guru Govind Singh learnt from it and as they say rest is history
Guest dada_rocks Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 How many of you think that it is 'patriotic' to stay back in India in present time and fight it out there rather than being 'unpatriotic' and have flown out for greener pastures? Fight what? I end up helping India more from here, but still for my own mental peace I wud like to move back. Despite all the problems and trust me I get nothing but problems there I still can't let it go..
Bongosamaj Posted November 14, 2007 Posted November 14, 2007 Precisely why it failed against islamic marauders and greats like Teg bahadur lost wasted their lives But the context of this thread is independence-related, which is clearly to do with the British. And it clearly worked against them. So, bottomline- far more successful strategy than 'eye for an eye'. Besides, muslim invasion happened because India was busy fighting each other and no united ambition. Nothing to do with 'ahimsa failed' because there were no ahimsa-leaders back in those days. So at best, your idea that it won't work against the 'muslim marauders' is at best, an untested hypothesis.
Recommended Posts