India is no doubt the biggest democracy on earth, but it’s also one of the most corrupt, disorganized and socially disparate countries of the world. At the core of this disheartening state of affairs of our beloved country lies the fact that, we, the people, take our independence for granted. And, the reason why we do so is primarily because we never fought for independence but we got it in Alms. Thanks to the enormous efforts of Mahatma Gandhi.
One can only but appreciate his efforts in the Champaran agitation (1918) and Kheda Satyagraha. The zeal with which he appealed to the mass to fight collectively against the british through non-cooperation (1922) is commendable. The intent behind his Quit India movement (1942) is surely nothing else but extreme patriotism and is worth applauding. His principles of faith, equality, simplicity and service have global implications and should surely be adhered to by every human being as moral obligations. But when it comes to Non-Violence things take up a nasty turn. There is nothing wrong as such with the principle itself but the question is who should use it and when should one use it.
You can not ask a soldier to drop his weapons and hug his enemies. Imagine you are walking on a road with your sister and wife besides you. And then, Imagine if some ruffian starts molesting your sister, you can not say,”Oh my dear brother, why are you molesting my sister, molest my wife too”. Gandhi, who used to quote bhagvad-gita every now and then forgot that there’s a shloka in Gita:
“gurum va bal vruddhau va brahmanam wa bahushruta
atatayin mayantam hanyad aiva vicharayan”
It means, It doesn’t matter whether the person in front is a guru, a child, a woman, a scholar or an elderly, if he/she is a sinner he deserves to be punished.Bhagat Singh actually differed with Gandhi only in his principle of Non-Violence.
There were literally millions of Indians ready to die when asked for by Gandhi, and many of them actually did. But then, all of them died passively, Without offering any resistance, Without killing the opressors, the enemies in return. If and only If they had fought, there would have been a blood-shed but then we would have fought back our independence. Bhagat Singh was not pro-violence, but he wished to fight. He believed that independence was every indians prerogative and not something which we should get in alms. Through his bombings in the parliament he wished to awaken the mass from there deep slumber, and wished to repeat succesfully the revolt, the uprising of 1857. How I wish it had happened that way. How I wish we had tha ability to right the wrongs of the past………..
One can only but appreciate his efforts in the Champaran agitation (1918) and Kheda Satyagraha. The zeal with which he appealed to the mass to fight collectively against the british through non-cooperation (1922) is commendable. The intent behind his Quit India movement (1942) is surely nothing else but extreme patriotism and is worth applauding. His principles of faith, equality, simplicity and service have global implications and should surely be adhered to by every human being as moral obligations. But when it comes to Non-Violence things take up a nasty turn. There is nothing wrong as such with the principle itself but the question is who should use it and when should one use it.
You can not ask a soldier to drop his weapons and hug his enemies. Imagine you are walking on a road with your sister and wife besides you. And then, Imagine if some ruffian starts molesting your sister, you can not say,”Oh my dear brother, why are you molesting my sister, molest my wife too”. Gandhi, who used to quote bhagvad-gita every now and then forgot that there’s a shloka in Gita:
“gurum va bal vruddhau va brahmanam wa bahushruta
atatayin mayantam hanyad aiva vicharayan”
It means, It doesn’t matter whether the person in front is a guru, a child, a woman, a scholar or an elderly, if he/she is a sinner he deserves to be punished.Bhagat Singh actually differed with Gandhi only in his principle of Non-Violence.
There were literally millions of Indians ready to die when asked for by Gandhi, and many of them actually did. But then, all of them died passively, Without offering any resistance, Without killing the opressors, the enemies in return. If and only If they had fought, there would have been a blood-shed but then we would have fought back our independence. Bhagat Singh was not pro-violence, but he wished to fight. He believed that independence was every indians prerogative and not something which we should get in alms. Through his bombings in the parliament he wished to awaken the mass from there deep slumber, and wished to repeat succesfully the revolt, the uprising of 1857. How I wish it had happened that way. How I wish we had tha ability to right the wrongs of the past………..
Comments
Bhagat singh, I thought was not able to create any followers. So after he died, there were very few left who could use his methods and grant us Independence.This debate of Gandhi Vs. Bhagat Singh is not going to die. But I believe, both were right, and should be respected immensely, rather than bringing them up against each other.
History does teach us lessons, but sometimes it does teach wrong lessons too. Stop comparing them!
Although I would like to add, British government as you pointed out was supposed to be morally responsible to the domestic and international audience, but the fact is it always shrugged off it's responsibilities.. be it the jaliawalan, the innumerous lathi charges, point blank shootouts and "Dogs and indians not allowed" treatments....
Britishers in no way were less demonic and oppressing than Hitler. Bhagat singh I agree was not able to create many followers but then I owe that to the sick mentallity and "irrational choice of Idols" of common indians..
history never "teaches" us lessons... we learn from history.. so the quetion of wrong lessons is subjective to an individuals rational interpretation of historic events.. Alas... If only we had been rational.. Bhagat singh would have had many followers and not Gandhi.. and today.. India would have been a different country.. ALAS!!!!!
However different we might like to think of ourselves as, fact remains; that we still think as the generation before us did... and the same principles apply..
Gandhigiri it aint.... no thats extremism.. the principle of non voilence is more applicable now than it was at anyother time.. if we keep hitting back for the hit.. what I ask is the difference between the both.
I know someone will not agree.. just stating a point of view :).