M K Gandhi And The Gandhian Legacy

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Kaushal+Nov 26 2005, 05:13 AM-->QUOTE(Kaushal @ Nov 26 2005, 05:13 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->benami, apropos , the use of violence, I have altered my post and added the word unconditionally as a qualifier to the use of violence, meaning violence in the form of military action should be the part of the tool box of any nation or people. But its efficacy is diluted if one uses it indiscriminately. Human life is precious and i agree with General Patton that we allow the other guy to give up his life for his cause rather than give up your own. IOW finesse the situation in a non violent manner before resorting to violence. sri Krishna tries every trick in the book to avoid violent conflict in this case fratricidal) before he instructs Arjuna that the time has come to fight. so also there is a time to fight but like  Field Marshall Sam Maneckshaw  in 1971 we pick the time , the venue and the circumstances and not be forced into a reactionary cycle of violence
[right][snapback]42010[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


hi,

that human life is precious is not something that occured to gandhi when he send indians to die in lybia, italy and burma did it??? or when he supported the poms in the boor war??

by any yardstick, this man was a halfwit. but for ww2, most colonies would still not be independent.

and what makes you think that netaji did not use it effectively???
he went about things clinically. he tried a combination of physical and psychological warfare (starting the radio broadcast declaring india's own independent govt and letting indians knoiw that there was an alternative)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3684288.stm



tell me... who do only bengalis, punjabis and marathis in india know how to stand up and fight???