You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Did Our Country Really Got Independence On The Basis Of Non-Voilence!

    During the complete chapter of Indian independence, we were taught of just one grand personality which is Gandhi. No one else got so much publicity as Mr. Gandhi. During the fight for the independence & the time after we got the independence, we are evident of many sacrifices but those are not mentioned in our text books instead we are instilled of the perception & giving importance to only one personality which is understood with the song, "de di hame azadi bina khadag bina dhaal sabarmati ke sant tune kar diya kamal". Even after the independence our country moved with the agenda of one party only.

    But the reality is that our country got divided into two other countries which is Pakistan & Bangladesh. But again this is not done yet but many more lands were occupied by China. We are still struggling with the J&K issues. This remains the case of aftermath of the independence.

    It is estimated that around 1–2 million people died during the partition of British India. At the time of partition, around 10 million Hindus were on the Pakistan side and around 5 million Muslims on the Indian Side who wished to move. British Colony had already sent their most of the troops back to England and there were literally no arrangements for the people moving to another place. There was no food, no transportation, no water nothing for them. People were starving, children were dying but no help came from the government. It is to be estimated that around 1 million died in that moving process.

    The official figures were around 2 million but many sources say that around 4 million people died in the most horrifying partition of the modern era. The result of Gandhi's ego and the greed and ego of Nehru and Jinnah. The partition could not be avoided but the bloodshed might have been reduced.

    So where the non-violence is all about here that after all these years we are still asked to serve for one party & that we still suffered a lot because of the decisions of few crazy personalities?
  • #634915
    Some issues concerning to our country cannot be questioned by us now, as we are not live during that period and hence we cannot comment in haste. Yes the killings after the Independence in the name of partition is the black mark on our country, but that was unexpected behavior from the public who were just following some leaders and not applying their mind. However we should not question their compulsions now. What ever is happened is happened for the good of the country. By raking up old issues, we cannot arrive at a solution nor understand the issue in reality. So let us live and safeguard the country for the present.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #634925
    We had a fatal misconception. We had to follow non-violence throughout our lives she not against the British alone. We ended up hurting and killing our own brethren. The partition was a nightmare to the world.

    But despite the aftermath effects, Indian struggle of independence was the only peaceful independence protest until 1947. All others were independence wars. Gandhi easily saved a massive bloodshed. We could have not withstood the full splendour of British navy, army and technology. What he did then was commendable. But no one could predict the irrational decision of partition.
    Let's not ponder about past and look for the bright future.

    The stronger a light shines the darker are the shadows around it.

  • #634928
    It is not the the path of Non-violence but the divisive politics played by the British and later by our politicians which they inherited from the British were responsible for the bad incidents aftermath the declaration of the Independence and in post-independent India. Yes, the organised struggle in the path of Non-violence made the British to leave the country as they understood their presence would no longer safer for their existence. Our Freedom movement is an inspirational story line for many within the country and abroad. The formation of Zimbabwe and a sixty year old Telangana movement in India are the classic examples for it.

  • #634942
    As expected & as has been the case that for each one of us the decisions or the outcome would be different but don't you feel that the aftermath of our independence all the credit have been governed by the single party. That even after so long time wherein no one is actually alive who had participated in the freedom fight but doing business on those only.

    We are just on one side of the thing that either we were befooled by those or we don't want to know the truth.

  • #634946
    Whether one accepts it or not, the non-violent movement was instrumental in gaining independence for our country. The entire world accepted it. There may be a few who may not accept it. It is up to them. Various other factors might have helped but it was the non-violent satyagraha that worked. Gandhiji never claimed the credit for the success of the movement. In any mass movement, a leader is essential to give it a direction. It was Gandhiji who provided that leadership and as such he was the much-acknowledged person.

    The partition became a necessity. It was painful but could not be averted. The reality of partition was first accepted by Sardar Vallabhai Patel. Then reluctantly by Gandhiji and lastly by Nehru. The violence that erupted and subsequent death of lakhs of people can't be compared or linked to the non-violent independence movement.

    The people of India recognised the role of the Congress party in the independence movement and brought it to power. Whenever the people felt otherwise, they brought a change. There is nothing to be fooled about. Everyone knows the truth. Let all the people be guided by the truth.

    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #634948
    Independence has been given by Britishers as they thought there was no way for them except leaving the Country. They want something odd is to be done before leaving and they played the politics of division. Some politicians even though not keen on this division because of self-important reasons by some important people, it had been accepted and resulted in the violence and many people lost their lives. This is the fact whether someone says yes or no to the statement. It is an unfortunate decision and even today we are paying the penalty for the division.
    But our people forget the issues very early and concentrate on the latest issue than on the old ones. Because of this mentality of people, our politicians are making merry. They do some mischiefs and divert people on to some other subject and the media in our country is also helping this.
    I fail to understand how we can say we promoted non-violence when we made many people kill because of the decisions of some politicians. This is the question I get always in my mind?

    always confident

  • #635679
    One man stands out from the rest as far as our freedom struggle goes because he believed in his principles and views, which was non-violence. Unfortunately, even this great man could not face the onslaught of the political bickering and baying for blood that came up during partition. Globally people having been inspired and he is still appreciated for his thoughts and views.

    The path to our Independence was mostly non-violent, we floundered in the end. For this, we should not fault Gandhiji. When we read history, we forget the mindset, the situation and the prevailing trend at the point of time at that region. If you look back, child marriage, Sati, untouchability, the Patriarchal concept of the family all were widely prevalent and acceptable at that point in our Indian History. Now things have changed, we should blame people but we should learn from history.

  • #635699
    This is a wonderful topic. I thank the author for bringing it into discussion. I am desperately trying to keep my response brief. Even before the first war of independence in 1857-58, Sannyasi-Fakir movement started in Bengal (Remember the story of Anandamath). India witnessed Santhal, Munda and Chuarh rebellions. All these were violent movements. After 1857-58, Chapekar brothers in Maharashtra rose in revolt against British. Khudiram-Prafulla Chaki-Arabindo Ghosh and their groups revolted in Bengal during 1905-11. Rashbihari Basu went to Punjab and organized armed movement all over Punjab. We must not forget Gadar movement. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru chose the path of violent struggle after the death of Lala Lajpat Rai. Chandrasekhar Ajad, Ashfaqulla Khan rose in UP. Allamma Raju revolted in Andhra Pradesh. In 1930s Bengali revolutionaries declared:''Midnapore must remain without magistrate'' and they did it by killing successive three British magistrates. Surya Sen captured Chittagong and threw away British administration with his followers.

    Indian revolutionaries reached Britain. We must not forget Madanlal Dhingra and Shahid-e-Azm Sardar Udham Singh. Who can forget Madam Vikoji Cama?

    Then came Indian National Army (INA). Rashbihari Basu, who went to Japan from Punjab, formed INA with Magan Singh. He handed over the leadership to Netaji. INA reached India (Manipur and Andaman & Nicobar) during 2nd World War. Its failure was due to Japan's defeat. Netaji tried to make another effort but was held captive in Russia by Stalin at the behest of...... (let's stop here).
    The last nail in British coffin was Naval Mutiny of 1946. None of the above was non-violent in nature.

    It is not possible to change the nature of Indian freedom movement by distorting the history books. Violent mode of freedom struggle was equally necessary (if not more) for WRESTING independence of the country.

    [Let us read INDIA WRESTS FREEDOM instead of India Wins Freedom.]

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #635703
    I think the author has not understood Indian history properly.

    It was only due to Mahatma Gandhi that we got independence, and it was only through the vehicle of non-violence. Cut to today, when we see violent agitations for even the worst of causes. Imagine what would have happened if you had violent agitations that rocked the Nation at that time.

    Pakistan was a creation of Jinnah, who was ably assisted by Nehru. No role for Mahatma Gandhi. Please do go through all the records and one can easily observe the fact that Mahatma Gandhi did oppose the creation of Pakistan right from the start. Look at how many times he undertook fasts to just make the violent among the Hindus and Muslims to understand what he meant by non-violence.

    Mahatma Gandhi was one leader, who practiced what he preached. He never ever deviated from the path of non-violence and truth. Not on a single day did he ever show any attachment that was even remotely material. Look at the pages of history and understand how he could make the rich also commit to social causes and open up institutions, that, to this day, are engaged in solid social work.

    I really wonder how we could have obtained Independence, but for Mahatma Gandhi and his message of non-violence. What we lack today, is a crisis of leadership. Even Nehru was behind Pakistan, and this is history.

    Corruption was institutionalized during the regime of Indira Gandhi. She had her own merits, but it was she who sowed the seeds for corruption in many places. The Public Sector Units became vehicles for many corrupt practices and we have this legacy even today. Of course, the creation of Bangladesh happened so many years later, and if it were not for India, Bangladesh would not have happened.

    But if Bangladesh had been a part of Pakistan, it would have presented us with the worst of security threats.

    Today, the BJP is practicing, very actively, a brand of communalism that threatens the various foundations of a multi-religion society such as ours. Sir, there are still pockets where Muslims next door to Brahmins, but are so friendly and so helpful. They also take part in all temple festivals. Please do visit the town of Tiruchirapalli to observe this.

    So, let us not talk about Mahatma Gandhi and his ego. The fact is that he had no ego. Yes, Jinnah was selfish and Nehru played into his hands. If we observe closely what is going on in the world, we are all very much worried about nuclear power, since we have so many nuclear powers now and China is a huge security threat.

    All this has nothing to do with Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, non-violence is even more relevant today, than ever before.

  • #635715
    Mr. Partha, you have provided a lot of information about the violent attempts made to get rid of the British and wrest the freedom. What all this proves? The violent methods failed whereas the non-violent satyagraha succeeded in making the British to leave India and making us independent.
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #635717
    Mr. KVRR: "The non-violent satyagraha succeeded."-What is the proof? Where is the proof? Please read my response. I clearly mentioned that the last struggle against the British was naval mutiny in 1946 which was an armed struggle.

    In this connection, I am giving a link, which can be perused for additional knowledge. I am quoting from the said link:-
    "A great deal of British archival material is now available that clearly proves that the British left primarily because of the outrage in India caused by the INA trials and the British fear that widespread revolts would start in the Indian armed forces. The most primary source was Lord Clement Attlee, the British PM who signed the independence of India Act in 1947. In 1956, he clearly said to Justice PB Chaktrabarthy that the British had left solely because of the INA of Netaji Bose and the role of Mahatma Gandhi in their decision to leave was minimal."

    Please read the complete article or the book, BOSE: AN INDIAN SAMURAI (if possible), for the complete perspective. Please don't fall prey to the distorted history which is being taught in India glorifying non-violence. It gives an incomplete picture.

    Beware! I question everything and everybody.

  • #635726
    For any of the above authors who is of the belief that Satyagrah leads to independence then I still admit that this never had the case. Although this got us united for a common cause but doesn't provide the basis that this leads the Britishers to leave India.

    In fact this can't be the case & for whatever era we referred to, it's only the unrest less being taking place within ourselves that was supposedly so violent that once this comes up then impossible to control. And this unrest less wasn't the peace at all but growing turbulence because of injustice of the British administration.

  • #635727
    My proof is none other than our beloved Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Our Prime Minister Modiji always praises Mahatma Gandhi's contribution and his non-violent satyagraha not only in our country but abroad also. I believe Modiji and his praise of Gandhiji.
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #635729

    If someone hit you then would you be kind enough to ignore that & during aftermath would you again prefer to have that again on yourself saying that you can't revert as you still believe in "Satyagrah".

    In addition, I would like to clarify that PM Modi is working with a strategy to bring justice to the society through different projects like the Demonetization & GST. The world has seen the India hitting inside the territory of Pakistan through Surgical Strikes, in Kashmir through killing terrorists or against of all those who support this in some way & recently we deployed our army along with the ammunition in order to restrict the China to its level. I don't fell that its a different kind of "Satyagraha".

  • #635731
    The thread title says one thing and the narration strays into some other area.
    To answer the title question: yes, it is the pre-dominance of non-violent,self torturing way of our fight that got us independence. Violence could have got back violence,and that would have created more and more violence and bloodshed. Even the struggle could have dissipated. Definitely it was Mahatmaji who was responsible for such a Satyagraha style of fight.

    Then, the question of division of this country. We cannot blame Gandhiji in this regard. The British exploited the divisive mind set of a certain section of people and their leaders. It was pure selfishness of those people. The Bristish very smartly exploited that and made a new nation just to create a check for the great Hindusthan from becoming a super power. The British could very clearly gauge and guess the intrinsic strength of this country and its people. They were sure that if this country became free and stood as a united single entity Hindusthan,then it will make British and other western countries (where other faiths are practised) into insignificance. Hence division of this country served all those who had selfish interests-the British,the Muslim leaders and some of the then Congress leaders too.

    Unfortunately what became worst was the attitude and approach of the Congress leaders after Independence. Instead of closing the wounds of partitio, by taking up constructive activties for the nation and the people's mind, the selfish Congress further started creating a localised style of divide and rule.

    For that we cannot find fault with Gandhiji or any of our selfless leaders who fought for our Independence. The only fault I find with the yesteryear leaders was that they should have seen that partition should have been complete by migration to respective nation as per religious faith, then and there. It would have been relevant and possible then. Just as one nation became a Muslim country, this part could have become a Hindu nation. It would have been quite proper then, as the partition was on religious lines. But some of the Congress leaders wanted to act as more holy than the Pope and more loyal than the king. That has caused the wound still not becoming fully healed and dried.

    Now the only way is to tackle anti-national elements with a heavy hand and keep the nation united always. Any kind of freedom should be only after the nation's security and unity only.

    Even now non-violence is relevant and it is the best for a civilised, stable and peaceful life.

  • #635739
    Mr.Ved Prakash, our Prime Minister praises Satyagraha time and again, mostly abroad. If you have any doubts about the virtue and effect of Satyagraha, better direct them to our Prime Minister.
    " Be Good and Do Good "

  • #635750
    It is laughable that Mr. Modi name has come in this discussion. The more interesting is that People believe Modiji only because he praise Gandhiji. Anyway, at least for one single reason someone like Modiji.

    Now coming to this topic.

    Though Gandhiji was indeed a world leader and so his non-violence path. However, saying only because of Gandhiji we have got the freedom is something we need to re read the history.

    The first question is, Why the British wanted to leave India after the second world war? Why not before? Gandhi has returned to India in 1915, if I am not wrong. Since then he started his non-violence movement. From 1915 to 1947, almost 32 years he fought it along with the public of India. If Gandhiji's non-violence was so strong, British could have left long before.

    Apart from that what other freedom fighter who were not with Gandhiji, what they were doing? They too were fighting for freedom! They too were uniting people from different region of India. It is not that Gandhiji was alone fighting it from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and easter part to western part of India. People those who were giving thier life for this country are equally important no matter whether they fight it with violence or non-violence. Their participation for freedom struggle is no lesser.

    Coming to the topic again, After the world war II, British power weaken world wide. They knew they can not hold India for longer period of time, because they have their other priorities too. Above all they have seen, what kind of damages Netaji has done after creating his own army. We have to look into all part of situation what has happened at that point of time. It is for their good the British has left India and not because of non-violence movement. Had there been not the world war II, I doubt if British would have left India so sooner.

    Coming to the Sardar Ballabh Patel, had he not been the home minister of India, the western part of Gujrat which is Kuchh now and Hyderbad would have become separate nations. Thank to him that he alone took case and invaded both the part and forcefully included these part in India.

    Why Patel was ready for partition?
    Because if they were not ready for partition, The British were ready to give command to Jinnah for entire nation. There were two condition, give Jinnah for what he want or make him the leader for entire country, indeed the British were spoiling every thing for what has Mr Patel planned. So, he was ready for it.

    Now coming to the topic. For me every people who gave their life, their time to fight for this country is no lesser than Gandhiji or Netaji. We got the freedom because every citizen of India whether it is a kid/woman or man, everyone came with one "Force". I will definitely not going to tell my grand children that only because of Gandhiji we have got freedom, NO this is not true.

  • Sign In to post your comments