<!--QuoteBegin-Sunder+Nov 25 2005, 01:13 PM-->QUOTE(Sunder @ Nov 25 2005, 01:13 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shaurya, you are right in your first point that wimps do not run away, and Gandhi did not run away from PHYSICAL attacks. But when it came to negotiations, did he stand his ground ? When it came to Muslims, did he stand by his principles? When it came to partition, did he go with what he believed in? When Moplah instigated massacre took place post kilafat, did he preach non-violence to them? Au contraire.....
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gandhi was blinded by the need to keep the masses united. He failed to see the political nature of Islam and as a result the nation paid heavily due to his and the INC's policy of appeasement. It is also true that Gandhi's doctrine of non violence and his most potent weapon (fast unto death) were used only against the Hindus and against a liberal colonial power.
<!--QuoteBegin-Shaurya+Nov 25 2005, 08:56 PM-->QUOTE(Shaurya @ Nov 25 2005, 08:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->without gandhi we would have got independence about a dozen years earlier and would never have been shcckled by the crappy nehruvian socialism.
An assertion for which, no proof or research or evidence is presented.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is a small snipped on what happened in 1939. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose
Clouds of World War II were gathering fast and Bose warned the Indian people and the British against dragging India into the war and the material losses she could incur. He (Bose) was elected president of the Indian National Congress twice in 1937 and in 1939, the second time defeating Gandhiji's nominee. <b>He (Bose) brought a resolution to give the British six months to hand India over to the Indians, failing which there would be a revolt. There was much opposition to his rigid stand, and he resigned from the post of president</b> and formed a progressive group known as the Forward Block (1939).
---
What made the INC decide not to side with their appointed president? Why was the INC (Including Gandhi?) unwilling to take the opportunity and kick the brithsh at a time they were in quagmire ? Why did they (the INC including Gandhi) have to agree to the british decision of Indian being a warring state?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Bose advocated complete freedom for India at the earliest, whereas the Congress Committee wanted it in phases, through a Dominion status.</b> Other younger leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru supported Bose and finally at the historic Lahore Congress convention, the Congress had to adopt Poorna Swaraj (complete freedom) as its motto.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why did the INC want freedom in installments when the optiion was fully open ? I hope you have explanations for the illogical behavior of INC.
[right][snapback]41991[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gandhi did not support the militant style of Bose and his lack of commitment to the ideal of non-violence. These are the key reasons, why Bose resigned from the INC. I think even Bose realized that without Gandhi's active support it was not possible to continue to lead the Congress.
If just by saying we want freedom and we want it in 6 months was enough to get the British out, we would have achieved it a long time ago. With all due to respect to Bose as a patriot, I simply reject any notion that his method or collusion with the Axis powers would have resulted in any meaningful results for the freedom movement.
The question of why did INC wait till 1930 to declare complete independence as the goal? The answer to this lies in the confidence of our leaders in Indian society to unite against the British and then manage a land so disunited, economically and socially backward. A leader is someone who the masses follow - right. So if the leader (Bose) says march against the British and the masses do not follow, he ceases to be the leader and resigns from the post of leadership. If Gandhi says quit India in 1942 and the masses follow he gets the right to continue to occupy the leadership position. So instead of faulting these leaders blindly, one also has to look at the situation on the ground (SOG) at that point of time. It is a matter of debate as to whether the progressive method of freedom (local rule...dominion status...complete freedom) would have led us to freedom faster and in an un-partitioned manner or was the way of the young leaders at that time Nehru, Bose et al the best way or a violent struggle as symbolized by the revolutionaries the best way forward. Could alternative models led us there faster, maybe. I am convinced though that any model, which did not recognize the core realities of India at that time was destined to fail
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gandhi was blinded by the need to keep the masses united. He failed to see the political nature of Islam and as a result the nation paid heavily due to his and the INC's policy of appeasement. It is also true that Gandhi's doctrine of non violence and his most potent weapon (fast unto death) were used only against the Hindus and against a liberal colonial power.
<!--QuoteBegin-Shaurya+Nov 25 2005, 08:56 PM-->QUOTE(Shaurya @ Nov 25 2005, 08:56 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->without gandhi we would have got independence about a dozen years earlier and would never have been shcckled by the crappy nehruvian socialism.
An assertion for which, no proof or research or evidence is presented.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is a small snipped on what happened in 1939. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose
Clouds of World War II were gathering fast and Bose warned the Indian people and the British against dragging India into the war and the material losses she could incur. He (Bose) was elected president of the Indian National Congress twice in 1937 and in 1939, the second time defeating Gandhiji's nominee. <b>He (Bose) brought a resolution to give the British six months to hand India over to the Indians, failing which there would be a revolt. There was much opposition to his rigid stand, and he resigned from the post of president</b> and formed a progressive group known as the Forward Block (1939).
---
What made the INC decide not to side with their appointed president? Why was the INC (Including Gandhi?) unwilling to take the opportunity and kick the brithsh at a time they were in quagmire ? Why did they (the INC including Gandhi) have to agree to the british decision of Indian being a warring state?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Bose advocated complete freedom for India at the earliest, whereas the Congress Committee wanted it in phases, through a Dominion status.</b> Other younger leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru supported Bose and finally at the historic Lahore Congress convention, the Congress had to adopt Poorna Swaraj (complete freedom) as its motto.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why did the INC want freedom in installments when the optiion was fully open ? I hope you have explanations for the illogical behavior of INC.
[right][snapback]41991[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gandhi did not support the militant style of Bose and his lack of commitment to the ideal of non-violence. These are the key reasons, why Bose resigned from the INC. I think even Bose realized that without Gandhi's active support it was not possible to continue to lead the Congress.
If just by saying we want freedom and we want it in 6 months was enough to get the British out, we would have achieved it a long time ago. With all due to respect to Bose as a patriot, I simply reject any notion that his method or collusion with the Axis powers would have resulted in any meaningful results for the freedom movement.
The question of why did INC wait till 1930 to declare complete independence as the goal? The answer to this lies in the confidence of our leaders in Indian society to unite against the British and then manage a land so disunited, economically and socially backward. A leader is someone who the masses follow - right. So if the leader (Bose) says march against the British and the masses do not follow, he ceases to be the leader and resigns from the post of leadership. If Gandhi says quit India in 1942 and the masses follow he gets the right to continue to occupy the leadership position. So instead of faulting these leaders blindly, one also has to look at the situation on the ground (SOG) at that point of time. It is a matter of debate as to whether the progressive method of freedom (local rule...dominion status...complete freedom) would have led us to freedom faster and in an un-partitioned manner or was the way of the young leaders at that time Nehru, Bose et al the best way or a violent struggle as symbolized by the revolutionaries the best way forward. Could alternative models led us there faster, maybe. I am convinced though that any model, which did not recognize the core realities of India at that time was destined to fail