10-23-2006, 07:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Oct 14 2006, 10:09 PM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Oct 14 2006, 10:09 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Politically, when (almost) everyone else sought to achieve complete independence through armed struggle the congressites (Gandhi, Nehru et al - esp gandhi) wanted greater power and privileges but within the framework of basic dependence on the imperialists.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Its "<b>non-cooperation was only a step towards cooperation</b>." See G. D. Birla, Bapu: A Unique Association, III (Bombay, 1977 ); B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya , History of the Indian National Congress.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The method was non-violence in thought and deed in achieving that. Gandhi, who played the "dual role of saint for the masses and champion of big business" told Guy Wint, a British journalist, in 1939: <b>"We cannot become an utterly. independent nation. . . . And so if we could becorne partners on equal terms I want the Indo-British partnership to be permanent."</b>
Gandhi also wrote that if dominion status was offered, I would take it. ( Harijan, 16 December 1939).
Those were his terms. The less said about Gandhi's terms on Hindus-Muslims, the better.
Another good book to read is Panigrahi's "India's Partition: Imperialism in Retreat".....
[right][snapback]59108[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So there you have it. In one line (permanent partnership etc) Gandhi also crowns himself the king of all Macaulites and Westophilles.
"Father of the nation" eh?? a Father who wanted a permanent partnership??
If gandhi and his chamcha Nehru were the only names in the indian freedom movement horizon, than thats what we would still have been - a "permanent partner" of the brits.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Its "<b>non-cooperation was only a step towards cooperation</b>." See G. D. Birla, Bapu: A Unique Association, III (Bombay, 1977 ); B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya , History of the Indian National Congress.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The method was non-violence in thought and deed in achieving that. Gandhi, who played the "dual role of saint for the masses and champion of big business" told Guy Wint, a British journalist, in 1939: <b>"We cannot become an utterly. independent nation. . . . And so if we could becorne partners on equal terms I want the Indo-British partnership to be permanent."</b>
Gandhi also wrote that if dominion status was offered, I would take it. ( Harijan, 16 December 1939).
Those were his terms. The less said about Gandhi's terms on Hindus-Muslims, the better.
Another good book to read is Panigrahi's "India's Partition: Imperialism in Retreat".....
[right][snapback]59108[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So there you have it. In one line (permanent partnership etc) Gandhi also crowns himself the king of all Macaulites and Westophilles.
"Father of the nation" eh?? a Father who wanted a permanent partnership??
If gandhi and his chamcha Nehru were the only names in the indian freedom movement horizon, than thats what we would still have been - a "permanent partner" of the brits.