Mahatma Gandhi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well said Fauji,

It is not the individual which wins or loses but the principles which he follows. What ever I know about MKG's principles are I think much higher than those of any person known to me. "Kuchh to log kahenge logon ka kaam hai kahna."
He is a great role model to follow because greater than body is the mind and greater than mind is the spirit. He had a great spirit which could inspire millions at the time and it still does.
 
Rajendra, Shubha Chand & Jagmohan bhai:

I commend you for your eloquent narration. The following part of Gandhi Ji's speach in South Africa says and teaches humanity more than any doctrine perhaps ever written or spoken.

"They may torture my body, break my bones; even kill me. Then they will have my dead body – not my obedience."

Look around and see what is happening in the world. Gandhi's words are resonating louder and louder today than any other time in human history. Brute force does not solve anything - rather it makes matters hellish.
 
Rajendra, Shubha Chand & Jagmohan bhai:

I commend you for your eloquent narration. The following part of Gandhi Ji's speach in South Africa says and teaches humanity more than any doctrine perhaps ever written or spoken.

"They may torture my body, break my bones; even kill me. Then they will have my dead body – not my obedience."

Look around and see what is happening in the world. Gandhi's words are resonating louder and louder today than any other time in human history. Brute force does not solve anything - rather it makes matters hellish.
 
Budh Nashier (Oct 04, 2003 09:09 a.m.):
"They may torture my body, break my bones; even kill me. Then they will have my dead body – not my obedience."
Click to expand...
Guru Govind Singh, Shivaji and Gokul Jat responded exactly opposite when it happened same to them or their people. If they would not have done so, it would have been different history today.

Indians joined armed forces at that time. Does not mean they were very loyal to British or they were against Nazi Germany. It just happened that they needed that job to survive and take care of their families.

There were many Indians who were working against these Indians (INA). Now which one we can say is more right. In my opinion both were right. Indians in INA were True Indian soldiers and Indians in British army were soldiers who needed that job to survive.
(Enrolling in Indian army was influenced by many other reason as well, especially Ginha encouraged Muslims to enroll in British army, as he perceived it will help him to get better deal after WWII, and in fact it did , As Col Malik pointed out benefits of joining army)

If world was so impressed (Great British Empire at that time, which was on it’s peak) with MKG that they give out independent to India. Why the same people locked up Nelson Mandela for 26 years, who was doing exactly same thing, what MKG did.
 
Mahatama Gandhi was not a superhuman but a simple man who clear vision about the future of this country. Altough Indian independence was achieved beacuse Britishers were too weak to control 30 crore indians after their losses in WW2. But Gandhi did a great thing in mobilizing the opionion of non-cooperation among us. Altough Indian independence was not won because of a struggle, since non-voilent struggle is not a struggle but a mix of submission and unwillingness to cooperate, but that was the best option at that time. Gandhi realized this and so he pursued a non-voilent way to stop cooperating with the british. He was also against the concept of secularism w/o relegion (the Nehru's ideology) and spiritualism. He knew very well the importance of relegion in India.

But on the whole he devoted his life to India and not to hindus or muslims. He was a man of vision and he had the perseverence it takes to follow ones vision. For me he epitomizes ones faith in himself and a undying enthusiasm to help ones country. Nathuram Godse was nothing but an illusioned Hindu fanatic who did not represented any hindu. Atleast he does not represent me at all.
 
I would say just one thing.......Among all the countries which were won their freedom with us after WW2, its only our India which didn't have single military coup or dictator. Our democracy is one of the most deep rooted and stable today in whole of the world. And the credit for this all goes to Mahatma Gandhi. He was the only great man in the recent histroy of India who had decreased the distance between his mind and heart to zero. I agree wholly to the views of Budh Singh Bhaisaab.
Vivek
 
I don't mean to hurt anybody feelings but could not resist myself in writing some facts and personal views....
**********************
Nehru ne to Kateak ( Kartik Month) ali mai bhi lutluti na le, usmain bhi bach gaya...

Mrs. Mountbatton and Nehru @ :-)$%^&

Gandhi was defeated by Netaji in Congress Adhivesan for the post of congress president by 89% to 11%..... Gandhi was annoyed with his defeat and declare of his retirement from Politics..Netaji was not comfortable in achieveing his goal thro' congress ( Freedom for INDIA ). Netaji resigned from post of congress president and rest is history.....

Nathuram Godse wrote a book in Jail.... "Maine Gandhi ko kyon mara" which was not allowed to publish and destroyed.

Bhagat Singh would have been saved from " Fansi" if Gandhi approach to Angrez.. but he never did... may be against his policy ( Ahinsa Permo Dharam ). Is Ahinsa ke chakkar main Moughals + Angrez ruled India for such a long time. AHINSA MEANS DOOSREY KO MAT SATAO... Per jab koi hindustan walon ko subah , shyam.. uthley bathey sattaney mare ( I mean Gulami ) ... to kaise ahinsa?? Ahinsa .. vahinsa se hame koi aazadi nahi mili.... Kya ahinsa se Kargil vapis mila tha ??
Answer is BIG NOPE.
Ahinsa se China se Zameen vapis la le kya.. It was Nehru "Ahinsa Policy" which lost our elders in Nefa hills and these 'YELLOW RACES' capture our territory.

Gandhji answer was " Agar koi aapke ek gaal per thappad marey to doosra gaal aagey kar do" . How Funny...IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG. ( If we follow it it means if Paki capture Kargil , surrender Poonch Rajora and RS Pura also.. ) Agar koi bageer aapki galti ke ek maarey to uske do maaro.

It was Garam Dal and alliance people who gave us freedom not by Gandhi. Barat ( fast)rakhne se koi aazadi nahi mili.... Bagar roi to maan bhi doodh nahi deti.... Gandhi was a shrude politician who took all credit of those who sacrificed their lives for their motherland. Hindustan's fate was written and kept in dark black box for some time from the day since when this Gujju Baniya ( MKG) and Kashmiri Bhaman ( NEHRU) start giving direction to Indians. Hindustan main bawle logon ki ratio comparitively jyada hai.. bus Banane wala chaiye.. Acharya Rajnish ( Bhagwan ?? ) was one of latest example.

How many of us aware of Lal Bhadur Shastri @2nd October.?

Abdul Kalam Azad statement before filing PRESIDENT OF INDIA papers "Missiles are to be deployed not to be stored".







Jagmohan Singh Malik (Oct 02, 2003 12:51 a.m.):


However, I cannot stop myself from quoting an old man from my village. He said " Jo yu Nehru bachpan mein malariye ya typhide te mar jata na, to iss desh ka bhala ho jata".

Lt Col JS Malik (Retd)
JAT BALWAN, JAI BHAGWAN
Click to expand...
 
Hi Uday,

Pls dont try to justify urself by putting wrong facts. Just want to contradict some of ur points(No pun intended).

Gandhi never fought for any presidential election against Netaji. It was Nehru who was defeated and not Gandhi( not sure abt the margin). And later Netaji resigned in respect to the wishes of Gandhi.

Try to judge a person by what he has done and not by what more he could have done(Bhagat Singh was a martyr and he would have never got martyrdom, had Gandhiji approached angrez for his clemency). Both Gandhiji and Netaji were nationlist in true sense, as well as all the people you talked about, Bhagat Singh, Patel, Shastri and Abdul kalam.

They differ only in their approach and so its good to argue it withour being malign to them as a person or to the class to which they belong( pls note that u used "Yellow Race","Gujju Baniya and Kashmiri Bhahman" in a very derogatory sense).

And how can a country allow a book, having fanatic views of an overzealous person who killed the Father of the Nation, to be published.
A country and its people are always expected to pay respect to each and everyone who fought for what it is today.

Uday ji, you started with the words "I don't mean to hurt anybody feelings ..."... but i must say that u did exactly that.

Thanks,
Manoj.

Uday Dahiya (Oct 06, 2003 04:47 a.m.):
I don't mean to hurt anybody feelings but could not resist myself in writing some facts and personal views....
**********************
Nehru ne to Kateak ( Kartik Month) ali mai bhi lutluti na le, usmain bhi bach gaya...

Mrs. Mountbatton and Nehru @ :-)$%^&

Gandhi was defeated by Netaji in Congress Adhivesan for the post of congress president by 89% to 11%..... Gandhi was annoyed with his defeat and declare of his retirement from Politics..Netaji was not comfortable in achieveing his goal thro' congress ( Freedom for INDIA ). Netaji resigned from post of congress president and rest is history.....

Nathuram Godse wrote a book in Jail.... "Maine Gandhi ko kyon mara" which was not allowed to publish and destroyed.

Bhagat Singh would have been saved from " Fansi" if Gandhi approach to Angrez.. but he never did... may be against his policy ( Ahinsa Permo Dharam ). Is Ahinsa ke chakkar main Moughals + Angrez ruled India for such a long time. AHINSA MEANS DOOSREY KO MAT SATAO... Per jab koi hindustan walon ko subah , shyam.. uthley bathey sattaney mare ( I mean Gulami ) ... to kaise ahinsa?? Ahinsa .. vahinsa se hame koi aazadi nahi mili.... Kya ahinsa se Kargil vapis mila tha ??
Answer is BIG NOPE.
Ahinsa se China se Zameen vapis la le kya.. It was Nehru "Ahinsa Policy" which lost our elders in Nefa hills and these 'YELLOW RACES' capture our territory.

Gandhji answer was " Agar koi aapke ek gaal per thappad marey to doosra gaal aagey kar do" . How Funny...IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG. ( If we follow it it means if Paki capture Kargil , surrender Poonch Rajora and RS Pura also.. ) Agar koi bageer aapki galti ke ek maarey to uske do maaro.

It was Garam Dal and alliance people who gave us freedom not by Gandhi. Barat ( fast)rakhne se koi aazadi nahi mili.... Bagar roi to maan bhi doodh nahi deti.... Gandhi was a shrude politician who took all credit of those who sacrificed their lives for their motherland. Hindustan's fate was written and kept in dark black box for some time from the day since when this Gujju Baniya ( MKG) and Kashmiri Bhaman ( NEHRU) start giving direction to Indians. Hindustan main bawle logon ki ratio comparitively jyada hai.. bus Banane wala chaiye.. Acharya Rajnish ( Bhagwan ?? ) was one of latest example.

How many of us aware of Lal Bhadur Shastri @2nd October.?

Abdul Kalam Azad statement before filing PRESIDENT OF INDIA papers "Missiles are to be deployed not to be stored".







Jagmohan Singh Malik (Oct 02, 2003 12:51 a.m.):


However, I cannot stop myself from quoting an old man from my village. He said " Jo yu Nehru bachpan mein malariye ya typhide te mar jata na, to iss desh ka bhala ho jata".

Lt Col JS Malik (Retd)
JAT BALWAN, JAI BHAGWAN
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
After all i have read all i can say is mr Gandhis approach of non violence woyuldnt have gotten us independence even in 2003 ,the britisheras didnt care about lathi charging a bunch of indians ..if the were capable of jalianwala bag u can just imagine wat lenghts they would have gone to prevent the precious colony to get away.
If we follow a "baniya" attitude of just sitting there and doin nothin in response to aggresive actionn then all i can say today there would be no indian kashmir or for that matter of fact north eastern india ..

For all those people who so are in awae of mr gandhi y don u go to the border and tell the asoldiers to give up their arms and juss stand as a wall as the would pre independence and ask the pakis to lathi charge them....

If gandhi would be alive today The geography of india would be totaly different.....

same guy who gave around 40 crore inr in 1948 to pakistan
same guy who was ready to make jinah the president of india
same guy who convinced milliions of indians and u people that non violence was the way to independence..........

If only we would have had an armed rebellion we would have been independent by early 1900s when ww1 was breakin out....................
 
Non-violence as guiding philospy of nation´s policies may not be best one.It should be rather pragmatic and cognizant of geopolitical realities.
It may look somewhat odd to blame a person after almost six decades of his murder but when personality of that person played such an important role in destiny of nation as great as ours one cant help but to ponder over things he preached about and profound effect it had on India´s policies.
Ofcourse one cannot blame Gandhi outright failure but some of his decisions dont stand in good light. It is a fact that although he took congress to masses but it´s leadership remained in hands of elite of indian society who were comfortable in company of british in any case and were going to be in driving seat once India gained independence.
As it is that nothing is absolute black or white, to portray it in that way would be futile and will prove to be an eyewash.
 
Dear Jitu,

Probably iffs and buts are not the decisive factor of the greatness. What was done is the fact and that Gandhiji led India to freedom fight is as hard a truth as you and me.

Finally what is the guarantee that Patel would have been better PM than Nehru?

If anyone has doubts over his greatness do try to read his autobiography. Even though I also don't fully agree to his practices, but sure what Einstien said about him is proving to be true:
"People will find it difficult to believe that such a being existed on this earth."
Sure!!!!
 
...I think it is time one thanks Rajdan Nain, Ranvir Dalal, Abhishek Dhama for their views on the other side of the coin, too...

I also think maybe it should be clarified that there is no denying the fact that Gandhi was a leader who was an important aspect to the whole Independence movement, but I think the idea here is to really discuss his role AFTER we were free as a nation, ALSO!!!...

ON a passing note; MR. Kalkhunde please do not kid yourself that the Indian troops went to the World War because they decided it was high time somebody stopped the racist Hitler (and/or the Japanese!)..geez!!!...You know, they probably had enough problems at home as it is with the very real Racist Britisher's (it would be ridiculous to say that never happened!)...

Secondly, let's not get swayed by let's say a song somebody wrote and sang, saying'"De dee humee azaadi bina khadak bina...Sabarmati ke sant....blah-blah!" cause it might sound good in 'legend-talk' but the British did not just get up and leave cause they really got the shivers with all that silent treatment alone!...and definitely please do not question anyone's sensibilities by asking a question about if there being 'any other one person or leader who would have got India freedom'...(!)[Do you by any chance have a signed letter somewhere in your cupboard where the British wrote to you about how they have decided to run and leave India for good just because of a certain Gandhi???...]

Mr.Jagmohan Malik Sir, I am the son of a retired Colonel in the Indian Army and have full faith in the tradition of our Armed forces...But please maybe you should think twice before quoting things like,'...The progress in our community today is because our grandfathers joined the Army and fought in Europe, middle and far east'(?)...Boy! Surely then the countries that never fought alongside the British, less so never went to war at all...must be really struggling to get out of their 'Third world Country' mode and status, isn't it???...(and I really am confused here now, so what was it again that Gandhi really supported?... the violence of half-clad/under-armed Indian's at the war front or the non-violence of half-clad/badly beaten-up Indian's on the home front???)

Personally..... Gandhi was the leader who did things the way he thought best, one cheek after the other and so-on and so-forth...and was successful at it, no doubt....but then there were other leaders that did things there own way, and succeeded in their own way and styles too....let's not just dismiss it by saying that they were insignificant with a 'Gandhi' around.
Dying with the bullet of a in-house fanatic or the enemy's (British; in most of the other freedom fighters case's)....both are still considered dying for a cause and martyrdom!!!...

Let's also not get carried away and forget that the idea of this free and fair discussion is about Gandhi alone (his policies, his successes and failures....his ultimate blunder of after getting slapped by the British, giving the other cheek to the Pakistani's-with the following generations getting slapped by them every where now, be it the cheek, forehead, chin or the 'kanpatti'...), and remember it's just Gandhi we are talking about not the complete freedom movement of India!!!...
 
Shailendra (Oct 07, 2003 10:26 a.m.):
...I think it is time one thanks Rajdan Nain, Ranvir Dalal, Abhishek Dhama for their views on the other side of the coin, too...
....... .......
ON a passing note; MR. Kalkhunde please do not kid yourself that the Indian troops went to the World War because they decided it was high time somebody stopped the racist Hitler (and/or the Japanese!)..geez!!!...You know, they probably had enough problems at home as it is with the very real Racist Britisher's (it would be ridiculous to say that never happened!)...

Secondly, let's not get swayed by let's say a song somebody wrote and sang, saying'"De dee humee azaadi bina khadak bina...Sabarmati ke sant....blah-blah!" cause it might sound good in 'legend-talk' but the British did not just get up and leave cause they really got the shivers with all that silent treatment alone!...and definitely please do not question anyone's sensibilities by asking a question about if there being 'any other one person or leader who would have got India freedom'...(!)[Do you by any chance have a signed letter somewhere in your cupboard where the British wrote to you about how they have decided to run and leave India for good just because of a certain Gandhi???...]
................. ........... ........

Dear Shailendra,

I agree that I do not have a signed letter in my cupboard or else where, as to why British left. Unfortunately, there is neither a letter that they left because of some Garam Dal young Turks. If you or some one else has, please let us know. Like you have your interpretations of history, we too have. Majorty of the Indians and for that matter world population knows who did what. This reminds me of Mahabharat when both sides were getting ready for war. Duriyodhan was upbeat that entire Naraynee saina was with him and Pandwas had only Narayan and that too unarmed. Final outcome is a matter of public knowledge.
Any society where moderate voice is silenced just by lung power, has the fate of what is happening in Kashmir, Afganistan and in many other countries. Thank God this did not happen in India, else we would have gone to dogs long back..and trust me, this will never happen. Momentum of moderation in India is far too big.

Final poser to you and others...Had force been the most effective method to get freedom, Sarazudaula, the nawab of Avadh had no match in that. He put 100s of British in kal kothree and they all died. Mind you that was very early part of British in India and with all the violance against them, they should have never stayed here. There was lots of sustained violence against them in 1857. Why did they not leave India at that time ? Do not tell me that Britsh left in 1947 because of the violence of 1857 and 1749...

Rajendra
Click to expand...
 
Dear Mr.Kalkhunde,

...Thanks for the enlightenment that indeed the British really got rattled with Gandhi's fasting and non-co-operation movement after all and decided to go play colonist's somewhere else...(You know, they were probably laughing all the way back to England after having sucked us dry, and then leaving a fractured nation for the non-violent baniya and his cronies to play leader-leader!)...

In any case, since apparently you failed to read the part where I mentioned that this is less about the Indian freedom movement than more about the 'great-Mahatma' himself.... I still congratulate you again about touching on the 'Mahabharata' itself!...Now I sure hope you undertsand that the great freedom fighter's and Gandhi's non-violent follower's both were fighting a common enemy (and hence at least supporting the movement as in the larger picture) and not each other!!!...and well, most of 'us' I am sure know that the Pandavs & Kauravas were actually fighting each-other!!!... Having said that I fail to see your parallel.

My heartiest congratulations therefore is to making making my point more clearer that the big picture is not violence verses non-violence....but what is probably most important [if we are to talk about independence] is that; Freedom was achieved by the collective effort of great men and women who wanted to wrestle back their birthright of complete freedom from the colonist's!!!...and please let's not beat the drum of just one visionary if we can...

Also, your reference about; and quote,"...Any society where moderate voice is silenced just by lung power, has the fate of what is happening in Kashmir, Afganistan and in many other countries. Thank God this did not happen in India, else we would have gone to dogs long back..and trust me, this will never happen. Momentum of moderation in India is far too big...."

...As far as I last remember, Kashmir was still very much a part of India, and what is happening there is STILL of a great deal of concern and reflects on most of India,...whether it is it's international Policy, agenda on a UN/SAARC summit, or even talks with it's neighboring 'Kaurav' Brethen!!!...(and I am sure the people in Kashmir would be very interested in your views on non-violence!)

And on a final note:..You say,"..Had force been the most effective method to get freedom....Do not tell me that Britsh left in 1947 because of the violence of 1857 and 1749..."

Please go read my earlier reponses again, I fail to find any reference in there about the usefulness (or uselessness) of violence at all, so I guess you are just reading between the lines there...

In any case, since we ARE talking about violence now... I presume the British too managed aquiring not only India but other Colonies thru peaceful means? [...How about maybe we try thinking more on the lines of the backbone-less-ness of selfish but useless Kings that sat on Jhulaas, and watched courtesans all day and invited the enemy within the holy land, just to be able to have them help in getting new and vast lands!!!]...and also as a side note; maybe you might wanna go check on the History about the great Mutiny too while you are at it...Young turks or not notwithstanding, my point is; One did what they had to do for the motherland...in whatever way they could!...

My poser to you,

...Any thoughts why he was thrown out of South-Africa while trying to practise the same things?...(God knows we would have still got freedom no matter what, while he could have better dedicated himself to creating a North and South Africa instead!)
 
My poser to you,

...Any thoughts why he was thrown out of South-Africa while trying to practise the same things?...(God knows we would have still got freedom no matter what, while he could have better dedicated himself to creating a North and South Africa instead!
..............................................

Thrwoing out means very little in such cases. This does not reduce the worth of a person. May be he thought to utilize his life better for fellow Indians back at home. One can not just be foolish to prove his or her point every where. As far as God is concerned I am sure God would have kept quite till some Mahatma came ..... There is so much of social evil now all around, why can't this home grown enlightened youth take up the issues ?

Anyway as i told you such debates are end less..Gandhi will remain Gandhi no matter what I say and what you all guys say...I am sure he does not need our re-certification..

Rajendra
 
Anyway as i told you such debates are end less..Gandhi will remain Gandhi no matter what I say and what you all guys say...I am sure he does not need our re-certificatio

That is the fact of the matter but sir that is not what we are debating,but the whole issue that does he deserve the laurels that he got .......

if only there was an immaginary world where gandhi was still alive ..kasshmir would be sittin in pakistans lap and we like a bunch of spineless baniyas would be in a non violent way re iteratin our point in the Un...

The real heroes like subash chandra bhose ..bhagat singh ..chandrashekar azad are not give due credit for theirr work ......

non co operation..wat a load of bull shit ....the britishers came and the britishers went and we stil cant get over our fantasy of a man who tho unintentionally gave us a problem 50 yrs bak that we loose 19 year olds every day for such a baseless cause
 
I simply do not understand why Gandhi is just related to Indian independence and politics, we should be rather discussing about what made that man so great, how he touched our lives and in what way does he inspire us even today.
we shall not just go on debating about what would have happened if he was there or was not, or taking or giving him credit for India's independence.
All I can say about being independent is that whenever I look at so many of the "freedom fighters" starting from Nawab of Bengal to Nehru, I feel that they did not want independence all they wanted was power to shift from britishers hand to theirs and eventually this is what happened and India is still getting plundered today. But what Gandhi did is the most remarkable act that never happened anywhere else, he wanted our minds to get independent, the self sufficiancy of villages is an example of that.
He did not fight britishers , he was fighting opressers and the exploiters, had he been alive today he would have been doing the same thing and this time he would have been fighting against his own countrymen, who are exploiting this nation and we all know who they are.
Thus, debating about his role or even violence and non violence is baseless, today the whole world admires him not because he freed India, but because he gave what humanity needed the most in such times, self confidence not self impostition, patriotism not cahuvanism , co-existence not exploitation, brotherhood not racism or castism and a lot more.
Finally, if anyone could do that and would do that would be a great soul and humanity would always be thankful forever for his existence.
 
Dear All,

Gandhiji name does inspire extreme reactions from individuals, more so from the younger generation. I am 45 years young and please don't count me in the older generation. Since the discussion has thrown up many side issues, may I attempt to give my views.

Dear Shailendra: It is a fact that people who have travelled far have always had a better perspective. Now I don't mean to say that one who hasn't dosen't. Historically communities who have dared to travel (Or displaced) have done well. They have occupied new lands, captured and killed if need be. The history of JATS points to this fact. We travelled and conquered. It was in this context that I said that progress of our community can be pointed to the fact that our grandfathers fought in WW I & II. By no means it means that those who didn't fight with or for the British have made no progress.

Points have been made regarding why Britishers ruled us and what were our Rajas doing. The fact is simple. The Rajas were enjoing and the 'Praja' was too weak to protest. Whenever someone from the 'Praja' decided to fight against the oppresor he fought. If he succeeded he ruled. If he failed he was hung. As simple as that. And let me remind my friends that if we become weak again, we would be 'gulams' again. And this time it may not be the Britishers, may be the Bangladeshis. (I know I am going to stir some really nasty comments: Can't help it as truth is always bitter). And there is no real Gandhi today to electrify the masses.

When did Gandhiji say that Non-violence means that you don't defend yourself against Armed agression. He had very clear views on fighting for your motherland. Comparing non-violence with cowardice is incorrect.

No one has said that it was Gandhiji who gave us freedom. Even Gandhiji never claimed so. He was not even present in Delhi when 'Chacha Nehru' unfurled the Tri-colour. I think Gandhiji was in Kolkata fighting communal forces. Achieveing freedom was like achieveing God. You follow different routes to do that. No one has denounced the role played by Chandershekar 'Azad', Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose. They did what they thought was correct. But to think that those who were in the Indian National Army (INA) were more loyal than the Indian Army of that time is totally incorrect. By the way there are doubts about the contribution of INA towards the freedom struggle and Independence. May be some one more knowledgeable can throw some light in a separate discussion. My study of Military History says that they hardly fought a battle of consequence in the Eastern Front (Burma War) and were used mainly as porters and camp followers by the Japanese. (Again I am stepping into a very sentimental area, but facts are facts). However, what SC Bose did, no one else, including Gandhiji, could do. Even though Gandhiji remains the tallest Indian in my eyes, others contributions can't be wished away.

Let me for a moment take you all back to your villages in the 50s & 60s (Those who were not born can ask their elders). Whose photographs or poeters did you see in your 'Haveli's' and houses. I am 99.9% on the dot when I say that the Photos were of Gandhiji, Sir Chhotu Ram, Swami Dayanand, Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Chandershekhar Azad and may be, just may be that of Nehru. Later Shastriji's photos were also added. And ofcourse that 'Geeta ka Updesh' ka poster (Krishna and Arjun) was a must.

I thought a formal congratulations was not needed for those who have a different view point. We are all 'ONE', brothers and sisters on this JATLAND site. I am sure we respect each other and that would naturally mean each others views as well. An old saying "If two people agree with each other on all issues, one of them is surely mad". It is important ot have different view points on issues.

Where is Jitender Singh Hooda who started this discussion on Gandhiji? Bhai Hooda, hope you are not reading 'My Experiments with Truth' before giving your considered opinion!!!

Lt Col JS Malik (Retd)
JAT BALWAN, JAI BHAGWAN
 
Jagmohan Singh Malik (Oct 08, 2003 12:44 a.m.):
We are all 'ONE', brothers and sisters on this JATLAND site. I am sure we respect each other and that would naturally mean each others views as well. An old saying "If two people agree with each other on all issues, one of them is surely mad". It is important ot have different view points on issues.
Click to expand...

Col Malik, very right said sir.

Jagmohan Singh Malik (Oct 08, 2003 12:44 a.m.):
My study of Military History says that they hardly fought a battle of consequence in the Eastern Front (Burma War) and were used mainly as porters and camp followers by the Japanese. (Again I am stepping into a very sentimental area, but facts are facts).
Click to expand...

That make sense. That would not make any sense that jappanese use INA instead of thier own highly trained recruites in critical positions.
 
Amit when you say things like, Quote/Unquote;..."All I can say about being independent is that whenever I look at so many of the "freedom fighters" starting from Nawab of Bengal to Nehru, I feel that they did not want independence all they wanted was power to shift from britishers hand to theirs and eventually this is what happened and India is still getting plundered today."...

I would be a little careful, cause you fail to notice that the persons you mentioned are not even considered under the ideal version of the typical 'freedom fighters'...There is a long list of them who that really are revered as great 'freedom fighters' till now and I am not gonna start writing that huge list,....But they all laid down their lives without a single regret of missing out on the great pie!!!...

But other than that, I agree that this discussion is about Gandhi himself, and even though since a link was there and will have to mentioned now and then...we still need to just look only at him subjectively.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top