Gandhiji Vs Bhagat Singh - Page 7

Originally posted by: sareg

arent we complaining they followed it far too much to protect ourselves in 1947 and 1962?

but please give credit where it is due, lot of people knew about it in theory, Only HE opened people's eyes in implementing it

But friends, Let us not make it a question of whose sacrifice is bigger, Mahatma Gandhi's or Bhagat Singh's both were great, it is the ultimate sacrifice to give your life for a cause, but a sacrifice to live(and see the current state of India), bearing a pain of torture equal if maybe not greater than death.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Oh they killed each other?...😆😆 I dint know dat.

I think u have understanding disability.That is why u didnt understnad wat I m saying or u have no words to disagree with this that is why u r behaving like that. They killed other ppl and history is the biggest witness for that. I give u a suggestion go and read some Indian history books.

I def agree that both Mahatma Gandhi and Bhagat Singh contributed in their own ways for the freedom of our country But its also the fact that Gandhiji alone took the entire credit for our freedom.As they say HISTORY is written from only the POV of the ones who succeeded but no one writes it from the losers POV and thats why history only tells us abt the victories and thats why we never know the entire truth .

In Naturam Godse's court document which has been released to the public stated his POV on why he kiiled Gandhi and the reasons behind it .I def agree that what he did was wrong and condemn the assasination but when u read his POV , it does make sense , from his POV , gandhi never allowed anyone else to carry their own independence movement , he carried out the satyagraha on his own terms and if anyone did oppose him , he would stay aloof and refuse to take part anymore .

Sardar Vllabhai Patel was the original choice for the prime Minister post but Gandhi didnt allow him as he wanted his fav Pandit Nehru to become the president . One can say that he was a true politician in a sense .Finally Sardar had to accept the home ministry post .

He opposed Netaji Bose and his INA , why . Just coz Netaji differed from his principles ,thoughts and approach , why did netaji have to go to Japan to form his INA .

Another POV , we all know who was Rajiv Gandhi;s maternal grandparents but no one knows abt his paternal side at all , thats bcoz firoze gandhi's last name wasnt gandhi but firoze khan , indira gandhi fell in love with him , his fathers name was Nawab Khan and His mother was a persian muslim . Nehru didnt want her get married to him for political reasons and thats when Gandhiji intervened and he gave the name Gandhi to firoze and thats how Indira gandhi became the wife of Firoze Gandhi ( khan ).All these are also other sides of the coin which could be true as well

article : http://www.vepachedu.org/Nehrudynasty.html

If he had wanted , he could have easily lifted the death sentence of Bhagat Singh , why didnt he start any movement to oppose the death of Bhagat Singh, he was the national icon , the people would have marched beind him had he just said anything to show his support for Bhagat Singh or oppose his death sentence .

I am just stating some of the POV that could be true as well. History always shows only the story of the victors and hence we get to know only the good side of them but the Fact is it can be seen from an another angle too and as they say , there are def two sides to a coin unfortunately we are taught only to see the one side and never even shown the other side .

Originally posted by: raj_aamna

Originally posted by: sareg

Good one sareg.. all i wanna see is how much aggression can we show in face of this new found realization....and what can it gain.. whatever it is that you guys think we missed because of this....😊

Originally posted by: sareg

Gandhism=> a large part of that was non-violence. since Nehru was his crony, it shld be understandable how and why Nehru ended up with the no-defense mentality that allowed us to lose the Indo-China war. carried-over failed thinking from the Prithviraj Chauhan days?

as mentioned earlier, we can also thank Gandhism for the kind of failed self-reliance economic policies we had to live with for umpteen decades. look at the price paid by generations later for that stagnant thinking. a few hundred million people who lived their lives in poverty thanks to that mentality.

success in getting us independence? high-time. after possibly undermining opponents, someone had to be around at the end to take over when the british finally gave in. happened to be him. but there were a lot of straws before that cumulatively broke the camel's back. let's not suggest that he succeeded while others failed. the british realized giving in to him was the best they could do, what would follow with others would be probably worse. the stage was set by everyone, he waltzed in with Nehru for the prize.

not for personal gains? what more can someone want than have people eating out of his hands? was he also that close to his family? how are u making the jump that he was not in it for praise?

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Good one sareg.. all i wanna see is how much aggression can we show in face of this new found realization....and what can it gain.. whatever it is that you guys think we missed because of this....😊

haha, maybe someone should point that out to George Bush and our pal sareg who thinks the Iraq war was worth "showing"😉😆

Originally posted by: chatbuster

haha, maybe someone should point that out to George Bush and our pal sareg who thinks the Iraq war was worth "showing"😉😆

Well Gandhism works mostly for oppressed who want to fight against an occupier

Gandhism is based on the assumption that your "goodness" will melt the heart of other, however it totally ignores the fact that the other person is blinded and only has an ambition of anhilating you

Many people want to extend Gandhism or the principles which came from ancient times of India(Bharat I should say) to Terrorism and whereas if History taught us anything it fails in that aspect(We did have Babar, Aurangzeb etc, to prove that)

Different situations call for different responses, I think India realized it too, picking up on the nuclear option was a strong indicator(and I am not talking about the Vajpayee's decision, but the process of building it up which started with Indira Gandhi), it is just some of us have a timid mentality and do not want to accept the fact of the world

Originally posted by: sareg

Well Gandhism works mostly for oppressed who want to fight against an occupier

Gandhism is based on the assumption that your "goodness" will melt the heart of other, however it totally ignores the fact that the other person is blinded and only has an ambition of anhilating you

Many people want to extend Gandhism or the principles which came from ancient times of India(Bharat I should say) to Terrorism and whereas if History taught us anything it fails in that aspect(We did have Babar, Aurangzeb etc, to prove that)

Different situations call for different responses, I think India realized it too, picking up on the nuclear option was a strong indicator(and I am not talking about the Vajpayee's decision, but the process of building it up which started with Indira Gandhi), it is just some of us have a timid mentality and do not want to accept the fact of the world

so we are on the same page now- "different situations call for different responses". in that vein, what Bhagat Singh and others did was set the stage whereby Gandi could be successful with his twenty-year plan. wish we'd lost some of that multi-decade central planning mindsight right after independence though. would have allowed us to get on on the right economic and defense tracks much earlier. 😉

btw, just so we know, one's private views are not always the same as the debating stance one adopts for discussion purposes here, whether it's on saddam or anyone else. just more lively when we dont have everyone agreeing on everything, isnt it😊