Gandhiji Vs Bhagat Singh - Page 9

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

haha, the "Gandhism with major fine-tuning" philosophy. maybe if we make enough adjustments, we can get it to work somehow😉

Originally posted by: chatbuster

Gandhism always works? haha, sure it does. 😛give it enough time and we can even walk to the moon, erect a third-rate multi-storey building etc. So what if it takes donkey years to do so? 😉 after all, time kee toh koi kami naheen hai when it comes to some of our brethren 😉

Ok this was in reference to non-violence and you doubt that??????

btw, has the Gandhi self-reliance philosophy worked in the economic sphere?What is your option for self-reliance - making india a free port??? i likened it to being a gangsters moll... all benefits...😆 If you can become another USA thats different otherwise forget it...has his ahinsa philosophy worked? didnt we have to fight a few warsevery war has ended in a treaty or a compromize effectively meaning there was a stand-off and that essentially means that the maniacs on either side of the war realized that war is useless, which they could have saved lives if they had used Gandhian manner of having a dialog. the point is, if you think about his philosophy it does make sense..., develop nuclear weapons? oh i suppose we shld have tried to avert those wars by turning the other cheek, no? He never preached that you always had to live by non-violence... infact I had posted one of his sayings where he admits the improbability of the existence of a non-violent society... he tried to preach sense if we dont get it.. its our shortcoming.. brotherly love is what we needed to show our neighbors. btw, has his philosophy not been diluted over time, not because people are messed up but because there were shortcomings in that philosophy? policy of appeasement, thats the legacy he left behind.A non-violent person can be mistaken for a coward just as a quiet person for being intelligent.. the point is what appeasement are you talking about? Working by rules, satyagrah, non-cooperation are appeasements!!???

it's always easy putting on a lawyerly smile when u're negotitating with the british or whoever when u know u have youth like Bhagat Singh ready to die for the country. 😊 Whats so special of Bhagat singh.. .There were several who died for freedom even the nameless in the satyagrah movement. He didnt wear indian clothes, wore a british hat!! Why is he given more importance than the two others who wore perfect indian outfits and stood by him.. ..If laying down ones life is the criteria that doesnt make it special.. if smiling to the gallows than the two others did the same thing....The point is they were hanged because of the crimes they committed....and their reluctance to be repentant...If being in early 20's is the criteria for famed martyrdom... thats ridiculous... Azad was killed in an police encounter... so he is a lesser of a martyr than Bhagat singh..

So Sarojini naidu or tagore should have blown off a hall while reciting their poetry to become true martyrs???😆

People who seekt freedom found various means to drive their point...most who used aggression didnt succeed..

With due respect to every freedom fighter who laid down his life for the country I feel there was nothing special ...which made him stand out and definitely not in comparison to Gandhi...

Tell me one good reason

Gandhian philosphy trancends time... and applies to any generation...😊.

Originally posted by: souro

I think you are confusing between Gandhiji's family and Jawaharlal Nehru's family.

Ok but he agreed upon making Nehru PM because he was his favourite and was so close that he even get ready to adopt Firoz Gandhi, whom Indira Gandhi wanted to get married. So obviously Nehru family was the part of Gandhi family.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

btw, has the Gandhi self-reliance philosophy worked in the economic sphere?What is your option for self-reliance - making india a free port??? i likened it to being a gangsters moll... all benefits...😆 If you can become another USA thats different otherwise forget it...has his ahinsa philosophy worked? didnt we have to fight a few warsevery war has ended in a treaty or a compromize effectively meaning there was a stand-off and that essentially means that the maniacs on either side of the war realized that war is useless, which they could have saved lives if they had used Gandhian manner of having a dialog. the point is, if you think about his philosophy it does make sense..., Because it is the law of nature that two people need to talk to stop or making clear a misunderstanding or a war not the law of Gandhi. treaties and agreements used to happen before Gandhi, it was not he who made ppl learn how to do treaties and agreements. develop nuclear weapons? oh i suppose we shld have tried to avert those wars by turning the other cheek, no? He never preached that you always had to live by non-violence... infact I had posted one of his sayings where he admits the improbability of the existence of a non-violent society... he tried to preach sense if we dont get it.. its our shortcoming.. brotherly love is what we needed to show our neighbors. btw, has his philosophy not been diluted over time, not because people are messed up but because there were shortcomings in that philosophy? policy of appeasement, thats the legacy he left behind.A non-violent person can be mistaken for a coward just as a quiet person for being intelligent.. the point is what appeasement are you talking about? Working by rules, satyagrah, non-cooperation are appeasements!!???

it's always easy putting on a lawyerly smile when u're negotitating with the british or whoever when u know u have youth like Bhagat Singh ready to die for the country. 😊 Whats so special of Bhagat singh.. .There were several who died for freedom even the nameless in the satyagrah movement. He didnt wear indian clothes, wore a british hat!! Why is he given more importance than the two others who wore perfect indian outfits and stood by him.. ..If laying down ones life is the criteria that doesnt make it special.. if smiling to the gallows than the two others did the same thing....The point is they were hanged because of the crimes they committed....and their reluctance to be repentant...If being in early 20's is the criteria for famed martyrdom... thats ridiculous... Azad was killed in an police encounter... so he is a lesser of a martyr than Bhagat singh..

Tell me one thing r u against only Bhagat Singh or all freedom fighters except ur Greatest Gandhi. Because ur post shows u r against only Bhagat Singh. From now on, ur post shows regionlism.

Tell me one thing what is so special about Gandhi. Bhagat Singh didnt wear Indian clothes as he didnt believe in showoff. Bhagat Singh was the man of time. Do u wear Dhoti -Kurta to prove urself true Indian or the great follower of Gandhi. Isn't it Bhagat Singh in Indian clothes.

Yes He wore western clothes when he needed. Didnt Gandhi wore western clothes when he was in South Africa. Then why his followers like Nehru used to wear suits imported fron Paris. We take both Rajguru and Sukhdev's with due respect. U never saw Bhagat Singh's statue. otherwise u never has said that when ever there is a statue of Bhagat Singh there are Rajguru and Sukhdev with him. But Gandhi is always standing alone as he was the only person to get us freedom😆What a powerful man he was.😆

Every one says all freedom fighters brought independence, only Gandhians say only Gandhi was the freedom fighter.

Yes laying ur life is criteria is criteria for proving urself a true freedom fighter. Because a coward person cant do that only a person who has sarfroshi ki tammana can do that. Giving speeches and making other persons' have lathis on ur behalf and get praise for that is much easier that that.

So Sarojini naidu or tagore should have blown off a hall while reciting their poetry to become true martyrs???😆

People who seekt freedom found various means to drive their point...most who used aggression didnt succeed..

With due respect to every freedom fighter who laid down his life for the country I feel there was nothing special ...which made him stand out and definitely not in comparison to Gandhi...

Tell me one good reason

Gandhian philosphy trancends time... and applies to any generation...😊.

Every one

Tell me one example where has it succeded in true words. and in all of my posts I have used the word all freedom fighters not only Bhagat Singh because we believe that all freedom fighters brought us freedom.Because we give due respect to all freedom fighters. They didnt throw bomb for fun, they did so in order to make Britishers feel that there are Indians to fight for their country, to make Britishers feel their existence.

This is my last post in this thread. I dont want to see and more insult of freedom fighters including Mahatma Gandhi because I respect all freedom fighters. I m not against that man but all freedom fighters should be given equal respect but other freedom fighters didnt get due credit for wat they did for the country except Gandhi. Truth is truth and history proves that.

Originally posted by: tina59

how can one say Bhagat Singh or the other freedom fighters werent right or didnt deserve the credit just coz they didnt follow the path taken by Gandhiji . One chose the non-violence patha and the other went to the voilence path which was justifiable from theirr POV as as their motive was to chase their enemies or the evil away from their home land . The fact is both of them had the same intention at heart , freedom of our country . Giving the entire cedit alone to Gandhiji is wrong as it completely ignores the sentiments and the sacrifices made by the other great freedom fighters. As i said we talk only GGandhiji bcoz he succeeded and we dont talk abt the other great freedom fighters coz they failed somewhere and thats why I have always said that HISTORY is written for and by the victors and we fail to see the POV or the perspective of the one who failed or didnt succeed .

👏well said

also wanna say something, freedom fighters were not failed and only Gandhi wasnt succeeded . the reason is that he was alive during Indepedence so ppl say only he was succeed but others give their lives for the sake of their country and Gandhi ne kabhi ek Danda bhi nahin khaya angrezon se to zinda to rahega hi na independence tak😆😆.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

btw, has the Gandhi self-reliance philosophy worked in the economic sphere?What is your option for self-reliance - making india a free port??? i likened it to being a gangsters moll... all benefits...😆 If you can become another USA thats different otherwise forget it...

hmmm, simply chart India's economic growth before and after the liberalization policies in 1990. the liberalization policies were a direct repudiation of the brain-dead self-reliance policies that the Gandhis got to inflict on the country for decades, thx to the MG mind-set.

In an era where it pays to work to your comparative advantage, we were out reinventing the "charkka" and trying to do everything. An economy of fiats and ambassadors, inefficient Russian-era smoke-stacks, an economy on the verge of financial collapse, an economy where we lost hundreds of millions of people to poverty, mal-nutrition etc. That's what we got from MG's self-reliance thinking.😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

What is your option for self-reliance - making india a free port??? i likened it to being a gangsters moll... all benefits...😆 If you can become another USA thats different otherwise forget it...

How about self-reliance through rapid industrialisation and encouraging private funds for the same. How will you ever know whether you can become another USA or not if you don't give it a chance.

every war has ended in a treaty or a compromize effectively meaning there was a stand-off and that essentially means that the maniacs on either side of the war realized that war is useless, which they could have saved lives if they had used Gandhian manner of having a dialog. the point is, if you think about his philosophy it does make sense...

Yeah right, every war has ended in a treaty and India losing a portion of its land. Really I don't find it so great when you recall your troops just when they have started pushing back the enemy (1947-48 war) and giving your land to the invaders.

He never preached that you always had to live by non-violence... infact I had posted one of his sayings where he admits the improbability of the existence of a non-violent society... he tried to preach sense if we dont get it.. its our shortcoming..

If he was preaching this then how come he did not understand the reaction of the people in Chaurichaura and called off the non-cooperation movement.

A non-violent person can be mistaken for a coward just as a quiet person for being intelligent.. the point is what appeasement are you talking about? Working by rules, satyagrah, non-cooperation are appeasements!!???

A non-violent person is a coward if he does not fight back violent injustice and also does not allow others to fight back, just because he is sitting there hoping one day the enemy will come to their senses.

Whats so special of Bhagat singh.. .There were several who died for freedom even the nameless in the satyagrah movement. He didnt wear indian clothes, wore a british hat!! Why is he given more importance than the two others who wore perfect indian outfits and stood by him.. ..If laying down ones life is the criteria that doesnt make it special.. if smiling to the gallows than the two others did the same thing....The point is they were hanged because of the crimes they committed....and their reluctance to be repentant...If being in early 20's is the criteria for famed martyrdom... thats ridiculous... Azad was killed in an police encounter... so he is a lesser of a martyr than Bhagat singh..

Now you are down to their clothings??? Tell me something who do you think the Indian army fights for...they often wear clothes made in Australia or Israel carries weapons made by Russia, flies aircrafts from USA, Russia and France and uses ships and subs made in Russia.

So Sarojini naidu or tagore should have blown off a hall while reciting their poetry to become true martyrs???😆

Why drag Sarojini Naidu and Tagore into this, they were social activists who worked for the betterment of the Indian society.

People who seekt freedom found various means to drive their point...most who used aggression didnt succeed..

Maybe you feel like that after reading history of Indian Independence, everywhere else in the world its a different story.

With due respect to every freedom fighter who laid down his life for the country I feel there was nothing special ...which made him stand out and definitely not in comparison to Gandhi...

Tell me one good reason

I'll give you one good reason...tell me even today how many people will dare to face the might of the British Empire like they did and welcome death in that manner. Not every Indian soldier will be able to accept death so unwaveringly. Call them stupid if you want but you cannot deny the fact that they were brave.

Gandhian philosphy trancends time... and applies to any generation...😊.

Please don't make yourself the basis of judgement for every time and generation.

Originally posted by: chatbuster

hmmm, simply chart India's economic growth before and after the liberalization policies in 1990. the liberalization policies were a direct repudiation of the brain-dead self-reliance policies that the Gandhis got to inflict on the country for decades, thx to the MG mind-set. So we cant make cars then? - talking about being brain dead!!!😊 A nation like Italy can built one of the finest... more than blind international trade and open market policies i think its more about some introspection...😊 and the right attitude... and sadly policies are make 100 billion brain-dead individuals perform in anyway all it will do is erode your identity.. look at japan - it has wealth but i think its the poorest nation in the world...today

Pakistan has been MFN for America and has its debt written off all the time and yeah i think its the Most advanced nation according to you is it?😊

In an era where it pays to work to your comparative advantage, we were out reinventing the "charkka" and trying to do everything. An economy of fiats and ambassadors, inefficient Russian-era smoke-stacks, an economy on the verge of financial collapse, an economy where we lost hundreds of millions of people to poverty, mal-nutrition etc. That's what we got from MG's self-reliance thinking.😊 All i think you are trying to speculate is blind open market policies and sound more like Marie antoinette travelling to the villages " if you dont have bread to eat, eat twinkies..."😆 Many nations pride in their industrialization... and we have world class car is maruti which mercifully doesnt belong to Ford, Toyota....etc..Our problem is not what economic policies we adopt its number of open hungry mouths gaping at the crazy economy... If we moved from 44 crores in 1961 to 100 crores in 2000 was that Gandhi's doing?😆

Originally posted by: souro

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

So we cant make cars then? - talking about being brain dead!!!😊 A nation like Italy can built one of the finest... more than blind international trade and open market policies i think its more about some introspection...😊 and the right attitude... and sadly policies are make 100 billion brain-dead individuals perform in anyway all it will do is erode your identity.. look at japan - it has wealth but i think its the poorest nation in the world...today

In which way is Japan the poorest nation in the world???

Pakistan has been MFN for America and has its debt written off all the time and yeah i think its the Most advanced nation according to you is it?😊

Taking loans to increase your firepower is different from taking loans for technological and economic progress

All i think you are trying to speculate is blind open market policies and sound more like Marie antoinette travelling to the villages " if you dont have bread to eat, eat twinkies..."😆

Many nations pride in their industrialization... and we have world class car is maruti which mercifully doesnt belong to Ford, Toyota....etc..

But belongs to Suzuki (54% stake)...wow you are thankful just because Maruti does not belong to Ford or Toyota.

Our problem is not what economic policies we adopt its number of open hungry mouths gaping at the crazy economy... If we moved from 44 crores in 1961 to 100 crores in 2000 was that Gandhi's doing?😆

Yes, I agree with you on this point.