10-16-2006, 09:41 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Oct 15 2006, 07:24 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 15 2006, 07:24 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->
That is the term in which Gandhi made sure that the British govt negotiated.
Because the British govt was ruling India in the name of justice and fairplay and perpetuating their hegemony in those terms - hence Gandhi held them to that stds.
British wanted a dominin status for India based on those sense of 'fair play'.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was nothing that prevented the british from going back on their word. How else did Jalianwala bagh happen? Remember is was the days of no TV and electronic news. It was just that British played fair in india. Churchill had gassed the turks without any remorse. So they could have very well done another gassing and had a fall guy. They probably had a policy of tit-for-tat and that is why Gandhi's satyagraha succeeded. Did the british not hang Bhagat singh?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If the British govt was a tyranical and oppressive in nature then there would have been another kind of leader under whom the people would have rallied together. This is the key to kind of leaders who get support during struggle.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not sure I would go to the extent to say that! It was not a govt for indian people benefit. British is what is referred to as stationary bandit, like any dictator who want to make money. They laid down railways etc that helped them loot india better that also benefited indians. But still, had it not been for the two worldwars, british might have been around much longer.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->After 60 years the world is under the assult of terror and violence inthe name of religion. This will generate a different kind of leadership who will find the appropriate kind of response. For Hindus with the kind of targetted anti-Hindu killings by the Islamists-fascists this will require totally different kind of response. The sense of history now in the 21st century is different from those days when the modern world was opening up just before independence.
The softening of Hindus in 60 years is due to indoctrination and false liberal movement by deracinated Indian elite which just perpetuated this Gandhi philosophy without looking into the sense of History. The current liberal movement is a false movement and has no connection to the liberation movement during the independence of India.
The concept of non violence response to a world at relative peace may need a change and upgrade.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is exactly what I am also saying. Non-violence would only work with an enemy that plays fair even in battle field. Muslims have never played fair, right from the days of muhammad when they looted unarmed caravans etc. So Non-violence is not an answer. I think hindus believe their own delusion that god would punish evil-doers. Although it is this belief that sustained them thru mughal rule and other periods of atrocities.
The current liberal movement is a commie inspired propaganda to diminish hinduism.
That is the term in which Gandhi made sure that the British govt negotiated.
Because the British govt was ruling India in the name of justice and fairplay and perpetuating their hegemony in those terms - hence Gandhi held them to that stds.
British wanted a dominin status for India based on those sense of 'fair play'.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was nothing that prevented the british from going back on their word. How else did Jalianwala bagh happen? Remember is was the days of no TV and electronic news. It was just that British played fair in india. Churchill had gassed the turks without any remorse. So they could have very well done another gassing and had a fall guy. They probably had a policy of tit-for-tat and that is why Gandhi's satyagraha succeeded. Did the british not hang Bhagat singh?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If the British govt was a tyranical and oppressive in nature then there would have been another kind of leader under whom the people would have rallied together. This is the key to kind of leaders who get support during struggle.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not sure I would go to the extent to say that! It was not a govt for indian people benefit. British is what is referred to as stationary bandit, like any dictator who want to make money. They laid down railways etc that helped them loot india better that also benefited indians. But still, had it not been for the two worldwars, british might have been around much longer.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->After 60 years the world is under the assult of terror and violence inthe name of religion. This will generate a different kind of leadership who will find the appropriate kind of response. For Hindus with the kind of targetted anti-Hindu killings by the Islamists-fascists this will require totally different kind of response. The sense of history now in the 21st century is different from those days when the modern world was opening up just before independence.
The softening of Hindus in 60 years is due to indoctrination and false liberal movement by deracinated Indian elite which just perpetuated this Gandhi philosophy without looking into the sense of History. The current liberal movement is a false movement and has no connection to the liberation movement during the independence of India.
The concept of non violence response to a world at relative peace may need a change and upgrade.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is exactly what I am also saying. Non-violence would only work with an enemy that plays fair even in battle field. Muslims have never played fair, right from the days of muhammad when they looted unarmed caravans etc. So Non-violence is not an answer. I think hindus believe their own delusion that god would punish evil-doers. Although it is this belief that sustained them thru mughal rule and other periods of atrocities.
The current liberal movement is a commie inspired propaganda to diminish hinduism.