Re: 23rd March?
Bhagat Singh was a dangerous terrorist. The real and successful heroes of the Pakistani & Indian independence movement (All-India Muslim League and Congress) rejected the use of violence and worked with the system to slowly work to independence being agreed without massive bloodshed.
The tendency to glorify and celebrate those who kill and try to kill is precisely what led to the massacres at Partition.
Jinnah, Nehru and Gandhi never called for anyone’s death in the struggle for independence.
Re: 23rd March?
^ Fair point and a very valid one too.
Sometimes my experiences and the experiences of nations as a whole suggests that violence begets violence.... nevertheless sometimes a brave man stands up and makes a stand... its often quoted that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter.... this is a very fine subject that requires a more open mind and detailed analysis I dont have the time to go into this right now... its almost worthy of a thread in itself.
However suffice to say that many times when your pushed over the edge and justice is as rare as a blue moon then violence is regretably something that spawns naturally. It really takes divine almost righteous levels of patience to ever win the non violent argument.
Re: 23rd March?
bhagat singh and co will appear as terrorist, if we see them from the frame of reference of truth and non violence of MK Gandhi. in the country of politicians who used to identify themselves on the basis of religion, he was the only atheist who has no religious affiliation, bhagat grew at the time of civil disobedience and saw its uselessness as child, meanwhile communism and socialism was impacting the social thinking of common masses all across the world. unlike mahatma who drew his inspiration from truth and non violence, bhagat drew his inspiration from socialism, Marxism and most importantly Russian revolution, he wanted to bring Russian revolution type of thing in India. his political thought were equally mature like most leader though he was far younger than other politicians.
and he believed that killing and subsequent reasoning is sufficient enough for masses to arise in the form of revolution in India. he bombed parliament and surrendered, he wanted whole world to know that why he did all these things, his hunger strike was to get the equal right for political prisoners and his sacrifice at the age of 23 is unmatchable.
his explanation of anarchism was
“The ultimate goal of Anarchism is complete independence, according to which no one will be obsessed with God or religion, nor will anybody be crazy for money or other worldly desires. There will be no chains on the body or control by the state. This means that they want to eliminate: the Church, God and Religion; the state; Private property”[
“The aim of life is no more to control the mind, but to develop it harmoniously; not to achieve salvation here after, but to make the best use of it here below; and not to realise truth, beauty and good only in contemplation, but also in the actual experience of daily life; social progress depends not upon the ennoblement of the few but on the enrichment of democracy; universal brotherhood can be achieved only when there is an equality of opportunity - of opportunity in the social, political and individual life.” — from Bhagat Singh’s prison diary, p. 124](“Bhagat Singh - Wikipedia”)
Re: 23rd March?
Bhagat Singh was a dangerous terrorist. The real and successful heroes of the Pakistani & Indian independence movement (All-India Muslim League and Congress) rejected the use of violence and worked with the system to slowly work to independence being agreed without massive bloodshed.
The tendency to glorify and celebrate those who kill and try to kill is precisely what led to the massacres at Partition.
Jinnah, Nehru and Gandhi never called for anyone's death in the struggle for independence.
Jinnah, Nehru and Gandhi were responsible for partition and the subsequent bloodshed.
Bhagat Singh on the other hand, began to question religious ideologies after witnessing the Hindu–Muslim riots that broke out after Gandhi disbanded the Non Cooperation movement. He was unable to understand how members of these two groups, initially united in fighting against the British, could be at each others' throats because of their religious differences
Re: 23rd March?
Nehru and Jinnah had their political ambitions as well. Jinnah wanted a separate country for muslims while Nehru wanted to create a state where everyone is equal and their is no biasness based on caste, creed, religion, place of birth etc, he wanted to create a society where every individual can think freely, often disliked in Indian circles, It was popularity of nehru and his premiership in India till 62 resulted in firm root of democracy in India:) Nehru even gave asylum to Dalai Lama based on his ideal of everyone can live freely in Indian society. He was more emotional than practical hence India had Kashmir fiasco and China war.
Gandhi was great person, he was genuine mass leader, never in his entire life he failed to make people follow him and his work in South Africa was clear proof of it, He could have made another religion as well:), but he was very stubborn and had idea about everything beforehand, though democratic in governance, congress under him was one man show till independence,in fact his unfortunate death gave VallabhBhai Patel much free hand to deal with unification, India is indebted to Patel sahab as much as Gandhi.
Bhagat was of different league, he was revolutionary, his group was first promoter of socialism in India,His way was of sacrifice for betterment of society, he never needed name and fame like Nehru, all he wanted a classless society, In fact, In Indian schoolbooks he will never get proper space because his ideals are not suitable for incomplete democracy of India, if youth starts thinking in Bhagat's way, all Netajee's have to pack their bags to hell:D