Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Gandhi or Bose?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Gandhi or Bose?
    Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 01:33

It's a controversial topic, even in India each has their own supporters. Everyone here has probably heard of Gandhi, his method of Ahimsa (peaceful resistance), which has been trumpeted in far flung places as a victor over colonialism. History teachers seemed to teach it this way anyway.

Not many people have heard of Bose, another resistance fighter with a completely opposite point of view to achieving south asian liberation, so I'll give a bit of information about him to those interested. Bose believed, in contrary to Gandhi that the only way out of colonialism was through force, armed resistance. To some, he is credited with the eradication of colonialist rule in India. He raised an army of Indian POWs captured by the Japanese, and was planning on using them to force the liberation of India. By the end of World War 2, which crippled the British economy, the potential attack sped up the process of liberation according to these supporters.

Who do you think was more instrumental in bringing about the end of colonialism in South Asia, and why? Bose or Gandhi.

We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 03:20
I think that Japanese and US expansion (sequentially) was much more important than either one: the fact was that after WWII, nationalism (anti-colonialism) was on the rise in Asia. Japanese puppet governments (formally independent in most cases) and national anti-Japanese resistence movements as well depicted a sombre future for Colonialism. On the other hand the USA wasn't particularly interested in European colonies remaining closed markets, even if they had a good relation with the UK. So the days of colonial empires were numbered anyhow and the British were wise enough to realize it and play ahead of the trend (as they had done before with the Europeized colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand).

But for the Indian case, I believe that Ghandi was more important as he activated the political movement without which any other kind of resistence would have been futile. Though it's impossible to know what would have happened if the British would have been more stubborn and tried to keep their control of India: in that case, maybe Bose and his army would have been more important, as other decolonization cases (Vietnam, Algeria, Portuguese colonies...) seem to show. True that these countries didn't have a Ghandi nor were ruled by the UK.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 04:36

Originally posted by Maju

I think that Japanese and US expansion (sequentially) was much more important than either one: the fact was that after WWII, nationalism (anti-colonialism) was on the rise in Asia. Japanese puppet governments (formally independent in most cases) and national anti-Japanese resistence movements as well depicted a sombre future for Colonialism. On the other hand the USA wasn't particularly interested in European colonies remaining closed markets, even if they had a good relation with the UK. So the days of colonial empires were numbered anyhow and the British were wise enough to realize it and play ahead of the trend (as they had done before with the Europeized colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand).

 

..and the case of Hong Kong being a colony till 1984?

I'm not sure when Australia got it's independence. But I dont think the pressure for independence was the same, Australia appears to have gradually become independent, South Asia was more of panic as it happened all in one go, including an instrument of partition that could have been implemented better.


But for the Indian case, I believe that Ghandi was more important as he activated the political movement without which any other kind of resistence would have been futile. Though it's impossible to know what would have happened if the British would have been more stubborn and tried to keep their control of India: in that case, maybe Bose and his army would have been more important, as other decolonization cases (Vietnam, Algeria, Portuguese colonies...) seem to show. True that these countries didn't have a Ghandi nor were ruled by the UK.

Alright, so you have two movement, one political (Gandhi), one armed (Bose). (It wasnt Gandhi who started the political movement but Bal Gangadhar Tilak, though Gandhi took over the leadership of Congress and perhaps added momentum). 

Looking at it historically, there were other armed struggles in South Asia, the first being by Tipu Sultan, though he was outnumbered and didnt really have much chance. However, this situation was different to that by the end of World War 2, since Britain had just expended a lot of money against the Germans. It would have been difficult to hang onto India and fight the Indian Army of Bose. Gandhi on the other hand at this time was still negotiating with nothing concrete.

After the fall of France in 1940, Gandhi declared, "We do not seek independence out of Britain's ruin." The British reply to this was an offer to discuss an Indian constituent assembly, as well as Dominion status `after the war. The offer was spurned. This resulted in yet status would be another deadlock not to be resolved till 1947

http://voice.indiasite.com/independence.html 

So for 20 years, though Gandhi did generate anti colonialist sentiment (though this was the stated goal of congress before Gandhi came to power anyway, so it's difficult to know how another approach might have galvanized the population). Bose had his army raised by about the end of the second world war, and it was soon after this that South Asia got its independence.

We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 08:52
I can hardly believe that an army that didn't fired a shot was behind any achievement. Maybe it gave some underlining to the Indian will of independence but it seems like the British were ready to give up already anyhow. Else they would have fought, like the French did in Vietnam and Algeria.

That Hon-ong remained a British territory is a minor issue that has to do more with the fact that China was under a socialist regime and the will of Hongkongian people, as it happens with Gibraltar or the Falkland. Britain and France still have an array of strategic bases all around the world but they don't have anymore any major colony, much less one that is willing to secede. This is this way since the 60s.

The practice now is indirect control: westernized and often corrupt rulers that allow neocolonial interests to have free reign, just think of Bhopal catastrophe and how their CEOs haven't been prosecuted neither in the USA nor in India.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jan-2006 at 09:24

Originally posted by Maju

I can hardly believe that an army that didn't fired a shot was behind any achievement. Maybe it gave some underlining to the Indian will of independence but it seems like the British were ready to give up already anyhow. Else they would have fought, like the French did in Vietnam and Algeria.

The Indian National Army founded by Bose was 60,000 strong and fought at Imphal and Kohima. This was in 1944 towards the end of the second world war when the free India capaign by Bose was begun. Though they were defeated, it generated a wave of Indian mutinies (following courtmarshalling) of the Royal Indian Navy, the Army, when a large part of the British force in India was Indian. A major part was then the loss of  military grip, the potential for another war that might occur if they hung onto the subcontinent. Was this Gandhi's doing or Bose's? I'd say it was Bose's, but Gandhi's Congress also added fuel to it. On his own though, I dont think Gandhi's method would have had the same impact, Bose on his own might have. Even Gandhi's Congress started using the courtmarshallings, which were a legacy of Bose's Army to fuel the mutinies within the Indian Army.



Edited by TeldeIndus
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 05:53

We have big enough hearts to accomodate both of them.Gandhi is on our currency notes as well.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 19:44
Gandhi is one of the biggest distortions of history. I do not believe that Gandhi made any positive impact on the independence of the Subcontinent. The British were not strong enough to hold India after WW2 and they were smart enough to realise it. Gandhi I think was used by the British as a way to make their departure from India easier for the British people to understand.

What Gandhi did was to alienate muslim Indians by posing as a hindu preist (which he was shot for by a Hindu fundamentalist). I consider Gandhi instrumental in creating the Pakistan movement and all the problems that have happened since Partition. I know Gandhi was against partition, but I think he helped create the fear of what a fundamentalist hindu government may do which fueled the pakistan movement.

Originally posted by TeldeIndus


I'm not sure when Australia got it's independence. But I dont think the pressure for independence was the same, Australia appears to have gradually become independent

You can argue that it never has. Australia got self government in 1901 but was still in every way a colony. It continued as a faithful colony of england until the 1970's when English policy shifted from an Imperial/Commonwealth one to a European one, effectively abandoning australia. Australia is a colony without a master. Reminds me of Roman Britian after the Romans had lost the ability to control Britian but before the saxons invaded.
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 23:34

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Gandhi is one of the biggest distortions of history. I do not believe that Gandhi made any positive impact on the independence of the Subcontinent. The British were not strong enough to hold India after WW2 and they were smart enough to realise it. Gandhi I think was used by the British as a way to make their departure from India easier for the British people to understand.

What Gandhi did was to alienate muslim Indians by posing as a hindu preist (which he was shot for by a Hindu fundamentalist). I consider Gandhi instrumental in creating the Pakistan movement and all the problems that have happened since Partition. I know Gandhi was against partition, but I think he helped create the fear of what a fundamentalist hindu government may do which fueled the pakistan movement.

I basically think this is more or less true. He's credited with much more than he should have been, till recently anyway, Bose is making a comeback, his film is out.

But Gandhi I always felt helped prolong the stay of imperialism in British India.

Perhaps he made it easier for them to understand, or perhaps it was a face saving measure - hard to tell, but I always wondered why they subdued Bose's contribution so much.

We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2006 at 23:36
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Gandhi is one of the biggest distortions of history. I do not believe that Gandhi made any positive impact on the independence of the Subcontinent. The British were not strong enough to hold India after WW2 and they were smart enough to realise it. Gandhi I think was used by the British as a way to make their departure from India easier for the British people to understand.

What Gandhi did was to alienate muslim Indians by posing as a hindu preist (which he was shot for by a Hindu fundamentalist). I consider Gandhi instrumental in creating the Pakistan movement and all the problems that have happened since Partition. I know Gandhi was against partition, but I think he helped create the fear of what a fundamentalist hindu government may do which fueled the pakistan movement.


I think that's nonsense.

Ghandi didn't pose as any priest but he just acted as sort of a holy man, which he surely was. He wasn't even Hinduist as such but open minded.

I would like to know more but I think that the partitionism was a product of Muslim Indians. It's obvious that India is much more tolerant and open than Pakistan, so the fears from Muslim Indians seem to ahve been mostly unfounded anyhow.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 00:57

Priest, Holy Man same difference.

Gandhi was an excellent politician and lawyer and used it well to his advantage. The fears of muslim Indians may appear to be unfounded now, but they certainly didn't in '47. India is only more open and tolerant than Pakistan because India has a decent police force. The founders of Pakistan didn't expect consecutive governments to be corrupt.

Partion was pushed by muslims who did not trust a democratic government in a majority hindu country that could potentially elect a fundamentalist hindu such as Gandhi. Which is why the majority muslim areas broke off to (idealy) form a democratic majority muslim state.

P.S. Gandhi was from one of the merchant castes, and his actions as posing as a Holy man were outside his caste dutys. Which is why a hindu fundamentalist from a higher caste shot him.



Edited by Omar al Hashim
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 01:29

I actually disagree that India is more open and tolerant. There's no point in getting into a debate over this, since it'll just be examples of intolerance thrown back and forth, which is perhaps Maju's objective in bringing it up . But this came up in the media recently, so perhaps it's worth a mention.

Thursday, February 02, 2006 E-Mail this article to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Asia society president calls Pakistan very lively, open

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON:
The president of the Asia Society has called Pakistan a very lively, very open place.

Vishakha N Desai said after her recent visit to Pakistan that the country displayed a level of confidence because of (its) economic take off. Asked in a recent interview with India Abroad what her impressions of Pakistan were and what changes she had observed since her last visit there in 1996, she replied: I was struck by (the change), and told my Pakistani friends (of it) as well they told me that 1995-96 were very difficult years for Pakistan because it was the post-Afghan period. Talibanisation was occurring. Peshawar was full of Afghan refugees. Karachi in those days felt quite subdued. There were not too many women on the streets, there were bomb scares.

Right now, it is very lively and very open. I think there is a level of confidence because of the economic takeoff of Pakistan also. I also think people feel that in the last five-six years, since Musharraf has come to power, there is a moderation that has taken place. Where it seemed before that it was going in the direction of more Islamisation, it is quite different and is something we should respect. Moderate voices are also coming up strongly against fundamental voices. There is a sense of betterment, they are less isolated and there is a sense of cautious optimism about the India-Pakistan relationship that this will get resolved hopefully in our lifetime.

Desai became president of the Asia Society in 2004, succeeding former US ambassador Nicholas Platt. She joined Asia Society in 1991. A Bombay University graduate, she earned a doctorate from the University of Michigan and was the recipient of numerous grants and fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Indo-US Sub-Commission on Education and Culture, and the American Institute of Indian Studies. She has published extensively on traditional Indian and contemporary Asian art. Her publications include catalogues of exhibitions she has organised, such as Gods, Guardians and Lovers: Temple Sculpture from North India AD 700-1200, and Life at Court: Art for Indias Rulers, 16th-19th Centuries, as well as articles on the need for the study of contemporary Asian art.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C02 %5Cstory_2-2-2006_pg7_49 

 

 

 



Edited by TeldeIndus
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 01:40

Originally posted by Maju



I think that's nonsense.

Ghandi didn't pose as any priest but he just acted as sort of a holy man, which he surely was. He wasn't even Hinduist as such but open minded.

I would like to know more but I think that the partitionism was a product of Muslim Indians. It's obvious that India is much more tolerant and open than Pakistan, so the fears from Muslim Indians seem to ahve been mostly unfounded anyhow.

Partition was more about political empowerment than tolerance/intolerance (which you are very wrong about - Muslims in India are having a bad time, especially when the right wing BJP was in power recently), but it's not my intention to delve into this side.

The point about partition was to give Muslims in India their own political choices - so for example if Pakistan was not formed, all the policies the Muslims would be living under would have been determined by the democratically elected Hindu government.

Some other reasons at the time were

"Hindu revivalists also deepened the chasm betweent he two nations. They resented the Muslims for their former rule over India. Hindu revivalists rallied for a ban on the slaughter of cows, a cheap source of meat for the Muslims. They also wanted to change the official script form the Persian to the Hindu Devanagri script, effectively making Hindi rather than Urdu the main candidate for the national language.

Congress made several mistakes in their policies which further convinced the League that it was impossible to live in a undivided India after freedom from colonial rule because their interests would be completely suppressed. One such policy was the institution of the "Bande Matram," a national anthem which expressed anti-Muslim sentiments, in the schools of India where Muslim children were forced to sing it.

http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Part.html 

Partition was most definitely wanted by Muslim Indians at the time - it's hypocritical, perhaps a bit funny in fact, the way you want your Basque on the basis of a unique identity, but cannot understand the desire of others on several bases, including a unique identity (though I suppose you must have followed my views on the haplogroup make-up by now).



Edited by TeldeIndus
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 01:56

Originally posted by Maju

Ghandi didn't pose as any priest but he just acted as sort of a holy man,

Sounds like a contradiction

We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 02:02
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Gandhi was an excellent politician and lawyer and used it well to his advantage.

Smart he was.

Partion was pushed by muslims who did not trust a democratic government in a majority hindu country that could potentially elect a fundamentalist hindu such as Gandhi. Which is why the majority muslim areas broke off to (idealy) form a democratic majority muslim state.

All true. All the Muslim provinces voted for the Muslim League in 1946 under their manifesto of a homeland for the South Asian Muslims - Two Nation Theory.

P.S. Gandhi was from one of the merchant castes, and his actions as posing as a Holy man were outside his caste dutys. Which is why a hindu fundamentalist from a higher caste shot him.

You might be right about this, havent read much about it. The press at the time certainly wanted to give the impression he was a Holy man.

Gandhi did not say hey Ram when he was shot
Monday, 30 January , 2006, 14:56
function playAudio(fn) { window.open("http://sifymax.com/bbradio/mu sicplay.php?f="+fn,"player","toolbar=0,width=200,height=45") ; }

Kollam: Mahatma Gandhi did not utter hey Ram when he fell to the bullets of the assassin 58 years ago, Gandhis personal assistant Venkita Kalyanam. Listen to Kalyanam

In fact, he did not utter anything when bullets from Nathuram Godses pistol pierced his chest, Kalyanam, who was a witness to the shocking event, told a meet-the-press in Kollam.

Kalyanam claimed he was just behind Gandhi when he was shot dead in Delhi on January 30, 1948.

Eighty-three-year-old Kalyanam, who hails from Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu, said politics in post-Independent India had taken an entirely different turn from what the Mahatma could have wished.

http://sify.com/news/politics/fullstory.php?id=14129797 

At some point Gandhi disowned his son, was this because he converted to Islam? Either way, if it were for revenge, the reason for converting was to annoy him, though there shouldnt be any reason for annoyance if Gandhi thought that Hindu-Muslim unity could work.



Edited by TeldeIndus
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
flyingzone View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
  Quote flyingzone Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 11:39

While personally I think Mahatma Gandhi should be seen as one of the greatest men (if not THE greatest) in human history, I have no problem with people attempting to clarify or even diminish the role he played in the independence of India. India's fight for independence is such a complex issue that someone has to be extremely naive to believe that its success could be attributed to just one person. But to argue that Gandhi did not make any contribution to India's independence AND that he's somehow responsible for the Partition is just ludicrous. It's one thing (and it's probably a good thing) to demystify and clarify a person's role in any historical event, it's however unacceptable - or even silly - to suddenly turn the table completely around and start blaming the person for everything that has gone wrong in history. This sounds more like some sort of sensationalistic tabloid journalism to me than a genuine quest for the objective truth.

Even during his time, Gandhi had been criticized by people who themselves were enemies to one another. But what do you expect of someone who's leading or in a way trying to influence not just politically but socially and ideologically a country as big and complex as India?

I would also like to point out one more thing. To look at the importance of Gandhi, one shouldn't just focus on Indian history. I strongly believe that Gandhi's contribution extends far beyond Indian history. He's a truly global and historic figure. One can continue to find faults with him, pick on the mistakes that he made, dispute his beliefs, etc. But in a world that almost everyone only worships and adores those who have built empires, fought wars and battles, and assumed power, Gandhi was one of the few whose legacy was founded on nothing like that at all. One could see him just as another politician. He could be ridiculously naive sometimes in his steadfast belief in total pacificism. But overall Gandhi, as a historic figure, is truly a league of his own. He was not a saint. (I do NOT believe in any saintly figure.) But he is my kind of hero.  

Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 12:19
Originally posted by flyingzone

While personally I think Mahatma Gandhi should be seen as one of the greatest men (if not THE greatest) in human history, I have no problem with people attempting to clarify or even diminish the role he played in the independence of India. India's fight for independence is such a complex issue that someone has to be extremely naive to believe that its success could be attributed to just one person. But to argue that Gandhi did not make any contribution to India's independence AND that he's somehow responsible for the Partition is just ludicrous. It's one thing (and it's probably a good thing) to demystify and clarify a person's role in any historical event, it's however unacceptable - or even silly - to suddenly turn the table completely around and start blaming the person for everything that has gone wrong in history. This sounds more like some sort of sensationalistic tabloid journalism to me than a genuine quest for the objective truth.

Even during his time, Gandhi had been criticized by people who themselves were enemies to one another. But what do you expect of someone who's leading or in a way trying to influence not just politically but socially and ideologically a country as big and complex as India?

I would also like to point out one more thing. To look at the importance of Gandhi, one shouldn't just focus on Indian history. I strongly believe that Gandhi's contribution extends far beyond Indian history. He's a truly global and historic figure. One can continue to find faults with him, pick on the mistakes that he made, dispute his beliefs, etc. But in a world that almost everyone only worships and adores those who have built empires, fought wars and battles, and assumed power, Gandhi was one of the few whose legacy was founded on nothing like that at all. One could see him just as another politician. He could be ridiculously naive sometimes in his steadfast belief in total pacificism. But overall Gandhi, as a historic figure, is truly a league of his own. He was not a saint. (I do NOT believe in any saintly figure.) But he is my kind of hero.  

That's just what they teach you at school, most of which is crap, sure he did a few salt marches, kept the people from revolting, and did most certainly believe in non violent resistance - where did it get him? just more raw materials, goods being syphoned off from the sybcontinent to build a stronger economy for the West.

To be truthful, I'm not sure if Bose could have done anything pre-World War 2. But Bose saw his opportunity during world war 2 to obtain independence, and grabbed it with both hands. This speeded up the departure of the British most likely, something which could not have been done during the times of Tipu Sultan (who was the first to use missiles against the British incidentally - the technology being taken back to England at the time).

Gandhi I dont believe was as important to the liberation of the subcontinent as Bose - there's little doubt about it in my mind. If I had to rate it, it was World War 2 which had the biggest impact, then Bose for the foresight to raise an Army at this time, then Gandhi - but not for liberating the subcontinent.

Gandhi just was more of a political figurehead that believed in non violent protest - so the years ticked on by under foreign rule. 

We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 12:20
Muslim Indians wanted partition, not Gandhi btw.
We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 12:27
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Priest, Holy Man same difference.


No. Very different: priest is just in charge of rituals (an imam or minister), holy man is an exceptional person of great virtue, like Mohammed or Christ, for instance.

Gandhi was an excellent politician and lawyer and used it well to his advantage. The fears of muslim Indians may appear to be unfounded now, but they certainly didn't in '47. India is only more open and tolerant than Pakistan because India has a decent police force. The founders of Pakistan didn't expect consecutive governments to be corrupt.

India is also very corrupt but still has followed mostly the way of reform and progress (Congress) and not that of fundamentalism and stagnation (Hindutvas). It has embraced democracy and tolerance, the only viable receipt for such a large and multiethnic nation. I think that Ghandi embodied and promoted these ideals.

Partion was pushed by muslims who did not trust a democratic government in a majority hindu country that could potentially elect a fundamentalist hindu such as Gandhi.

Ghandi wasn't any fundamentalist Hindu. I think he wasn't even fully Hindu: he obviously had a Hindu background but he flirted with Christianity for instance.

Which is why the majority muslim areas broke off to (idealy) form a democratic majority muslim state.

But it's not the case: your denounciation of Ghandi has nothing to do with reality.


P.S. Gandhi was from one of the merchant castes, and his actions as posing as a Holy man were outside his caste dutys. Which is why a hindu fundamentalist from a higher caste shot him.



Hehe! You see how he was a true holy man and not just a priest.

Ghandi was also strongly against the caste system and promoted dalit affirmation and protection, policies that have been largely followed by the Congress Party.

I never knew which caste was he, nor I care. I have read that the fundi that shot him did it because Ghandi had accepted the separation of Pakistan (he was a gaiants but prefered it rather than war). It's not something about castes but about nonviolence or violent nationalism.

I just can't believe that you are teached such a distorted history in Pakistan.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
AlokaParyetra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 28-Aug-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 140
  Quote AlokaParyetra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 12:33

Telde, i think you're forgetting the political importance of Gandhi. While it may be that Gandhi did not infact liberate so-to-say India, he sold the idea of Indian liberation quite well to those outside India. It is hard to support a violent revolution, it is much easier to sympathize with a nonviolent one. While it may be that most of India revolted violently, the parts that gained the most publicity were the nonviolent ones. Radical ideas sell, and the British press would have had a field day reporting the abuses of its government against a population of innocent peaceful Indian protesters.

I agree, labeling Gandhi as a saint or the only factor for Indian independence is rediculous. But, Gandhi was a smart man. His whole appearance of a beggar, his words spoken, everything about him might have simply been an act. He might be the most fake character in history. But, what he did was important politically nonetheless.

So, in regardless to the liberation, i would say Bose led India militarily while Gandhi led India politically. And to say one aspect is more important than the other is dumb.

Back to Top
TeldeIndus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 04-Jan-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 258
  Quote TeldeIndus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2006 at 12:46
Originally posted by AlokaParyetra

Telde, i think you're forgetting the political importance of Gandhi. While it may be that Gandhi did not infact liberate so-to-say India, he sold the idea of Indian liberation quite well to those outside India. It is hard to support a violent revolution, it is much easier to sympathize with a nonviolent one. While it may be that most of India revolted violently, the parts that gained the most publicity were the nonviolent ones. Radical ideas sell, and the British press would have had a field day reporting the abuses of its government against a population of innocent peaceful Indian protesters.

I agree, labeling Gandhi as a saint or the only factor for Indian independence is rediculous. But, Gandhi was a smart man. His whole appearance of a beggar, his words spoken, everything about him might have simply been an act. He might be the most fake character in history. But, what he did was important politically nonetheless.

So, in regardless to the liberation, i would say Bose led India militarily while Gandhi led India politically. And to say one aspect is more important than the other is dumb.

Alright, you made some good points I can agree to.

Gandhi was a negotiator, but there were plenty of negotiators before him that didnt do much for independence (and some military minded rebellions that also failed), so I'm still of the opinion Bose and Gandhi made two very different contributions to independence. Gandhi was the peaceful public figure, Bose the man behind the scene who made things happen. It's a matter of opinion anyway, that's just mine.

We are not without accomplishment. We have managed to distribute poverty - Nguyen Co Thatch, Vietnamese foreign minister
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.