12-23-2009, 12:47 PM
[quote name='Kevat' date='17 December 2009 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1260991183' post='102992']
This may offend many people out there.[/quote]
Respectfully, the only person who would find this offending would be somebody who picks and chooses parts and durations of history as desirable/undesirable, on account of being incapable of forming a comprehensive view.
About your thesis. A different spin could be that the powers that be recognised the fact, of GB getting caught between a rock and a hard place and then deciding to capitalize on the situation by launching Quit India Movement, bang in the middle of a world war (Quit India being about the only anti-imperial agenda under implementation anywhere in the world at that time). This country is rather difficult to manage even in maritime conditions, what to say of times when people are not paying taxes and bureaucracy is getting clueless.
There have been many many great men before MG but as they say fortune favours the prepared mind. Indians were a prepared mind during WW2 and so was MG. Even Vivekanandji was said to have had his own ideas about India's independence and to have decided against launching any freedom movement because of his view that Indians of his times were not a prepared mind.
[quote name='Kevat' date='17 December 2009 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1260991183' post='102992']The idea of non-violence doesnt make any sense. Before blindly following it, we need to THINK about why it would work and whether it even works!!!! WAKE UP AND OPEN YOUR EYES! It is military strength (of Germany) which won our independence, and not the non-violent ways of Gandhi. If there was a war tommorow, it would be OUR military strength which will protect us then, not some far-fetched idea of non-violence.
- Kevat Shah
[/quote]
Non-violence is not the copyright of MG, nor did he claimed one over it ever. This is just as much as, violence is not your discovery. Non-violence has its roots in the history of India from the times it was named after King Bharat (when Pandavas tried to avert war until forced upon them) and the Raghuvansh (where a Godhead was amenable to avoiding violence inspite of the gravest possible misdeed of abduction of Jagatmata). By questioning the wisdom of non-violence you are in effect questioning the history of this country.
Ok look at it this way, Pick up any group of 1.14 billion people (you are entirely unrestricted here) and see if they can fulfil any of the following:
Now tell me if any of the above benchmarks can be met/bettered if non-violence is not the core ethos.
Also pls tell me if Violence by Nazi Germany could give India its independence, then why could they not save there own skin. And if Violence is so effective in getting to the goal compared to non-violence, then why doesnt every person commit violence every single moment. Why are people (even animals) predisposed towards maintaining peace instead of massacring of the competition (even competition is sought to be made sportsman like and/or restricted to survival needs only).
See I am a hindu, born and brought up on a steady diet of Panchyatna/Sambhav and who has over last 34 years come to believe that Bhagvat Gita is amongst the coolest and the most comprehensive ideas. The first this it rejects is called Rajsic (that which is driven by passion/zeal by implication glorification of violence) and the second thing it rejects is Tamsic (lethargic/unskilled/fearful). The only path it accepts is Action (as against reaction) which may or may not be violent. Action it told me is good only to uphold Dharma/Natural order (Implies that nature remains with all its accoutrements, subsets and varieties). It never for once raised the contest of violence vs. non-violence. The final thing it told us was to maintain contentment (a sense of acceptance) since not all the effects (fruits) are sweet inspite of the excellence levels of the proximate cause, which seems like making Non-Violence an affirmative action that is equally as honorable as affirmative violence.
This may offend many people out there.[/quote]
Respectfully, the only person who would find this offending would be somebody who picks and chooses parts and durations of history as desirable/undesirable, on account of being incapable of forming a comprehensive view.
About your thesis. A different spin could be that the powers that be recognised the fact, of GB getting caught between a rock and a hard place and then deciding to capitalize on the situation by launching Quit India Movement, bang in the middle of a world war (Quit India being about the only anti-imperial agenda under implementation anywhere in the world at that time). This country is rather difficult to manage even in maritime conditions, what to say of times when people are not paying taxes and bureaucracy is getting clueless.
There have been many many great men before MG but as they say fortune favours the prepared mind. Indians were a prepared mind during WW2 and so was MG. Even Vivekanandji was said to have had his own ideas about India's independence and to have decided against launching any freedom movement because of his view that Indians of his times were not a prepared mind.
[quote name='Kevat' date='17 December 2009 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1260991183' post='102992']The idea of non-violence doesnt make any sense. Before blindly following it, we need to THINK about why it would work and whether it even works!!!! WAKE UP AND OPEN YOUR EYES! It is military strength (of Germany) which won our independence, and not the non-violent ways of Gandhi. If there was a war tommorow, it would be OUR military strength which will protect us then, not some far-fetched idea of non-violence.
- Kevat Shah
[/quote]
Non-violence is not the copyright of MG, nor did he claimed one over it ever. This is just as much as, violence is not your discovery. Non-violence has its roots in the history of India from the times it was named after King Bharat (when Pandavas tried to avert war until forced upon them) and the Raghuvansh (where a Godhead was amenable to avoiding violence inspite of the gravest possible misdeed of abduction of Jagatmata). By questioning the wisdom of non-violence you are in effect questioning the history of this country.
Ok look at it this way, Pick up any group of 1.14 billion people (you are entirely unrestricted here) and see if they can fulfil any of the following:
- They work and live under one tax structure,
- They work and live under one socio-legal structure,
- They benefit from free movement of goods and people,
- They benefit from free movement of ideas,
- They go on to notch 9.5% GDP growth,
- They do 9.5% (as also 7% in depressed market conditions) without the support of a leadership in the form of a govermental effort,
- They dont need there government(s) to do big ticket items for them (eg. education, business, social change)
- They refuse, that too quite respectfully, to be led by people they dont find good enough for themselves.
- They cock a snook at every Super Power that make its presence know within last 100 years.
- They can figure out the difference between Muslims of there own country and the Muslims of the other country, when that other country has gone about bombing there country (Instances of riots not following the bombing campaign clearly outnumbering the instances of riots following the bombings, and in fact former instance being the only response for most of the latest bombings) and this in times when muslims are facing (rightfully or wrongfully) discrimination everywhere in the world.
Now tell me if any of the above benchmarks can be met/bettered if non-violence is not the core ethos.
Also pls tell me if Violence by Nazi Germany could give India its independence, then why could they not save there own skin. And if Violence is so effective in getting to the goal compared to non-violence, then why doesnt every person commit violence every single moment. Why are people (even animals) predisposed towards maintaining peace instead of massacring of the competition (even competition is sought to be made sportsman like and/or restricted to survival needs only).
See I am a hindu, born and brought up on a steady diet of Panchyatna/Sambhav and who has over last 34 years come to believe that Bhagvat Gita is amongst the coolest and the most comprehensive ideas. The first this it rejects is called Rajsic (that which is driven by passion/zeal by implication glorification of violence) and the second thing it rejects is Tamsic (lethargic/unskilled/fearful). The only path it accepts is Action (as against reaction) which may or may not be violent. Action it told me is good only to uphold Dharma/Natural order (Implies that nature remains with all its accoutrements, subsets and varieties). It never for once raised the contest of violence vs. non-violence. The final thing it told us was to maintain contentment (a sense of acceptance) since not all the effects (fruits) are sweet inspite of the excellence levels of the proximate cause, which seems like making Non-Violence an affirmative action that is equally as honorable as affirmative violence.