contest thread- Indian Independence was achieved through non violence means only under Gandhiji's leadership

anil wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

anil wrote:

Vikram Sharma wrote:

India was independent in 15 of Aug.1947 but we can't say we are acheive  this through non violence, because in past in present and in future anything we can't acheive without violence. Well really we got independence our fighter Bhagat Singh, Chandra sgekhar azad, subhas chandar boss etc.. These are the hero.

You are right, I said what I want to say. While giving credit of Gandhi ji and his non violence plan for independence we must be forgot Bhagat Singh, Subhash Chander Bose, Chandershekar Azad. It shameful that till the day Bhagat Singh is not martyr in government records.

Record of Bhagat singh is in Lahore (Pakistan) jail. Apparently, the govt. of independent India is a continuation of the British Indian government. Although we believe that Bhagat singh was a martyr, the govt. records remain as they were during British period. 

Yes we believe and respect him and martyr. In north India Bhagat Singh is a great person but government of India must be declare him a martyr.

Please see that Bhagat singh was tried in Lahore and sentenced to death there and executed there. That region is now in Pakistan. India has no jurisdiction in the matter. It is for Pakistan authorities at Lahore to reopen the case and get the court order honorably acquitting Bhagat singh. Only then he can be officially declared as martyr. In eyes of law, Bhagat singh as well Subhash chandra Bose are still criminals even though we hold them in high esteem. 

India surely achieved its independence under Gandhiji's leadership and through non violent means. Lakhs of people would participate in the various programs and momentum was built over te years ultimately leading to British leaving India. This was the main thread of the independence movement. The actions of Bhagat Singh, later on of Subash Bose and Naval Mutiny etc., were isolated attempts but they added to the overall movement for independence. It has become a fashion these days in self styled champions to deny the main architects of the freedom movement their due recognition but keep harping about much smaller contributions making them look as if it was they who were responsible for ejecting the British. Blaming Congress for partition also betrays ignorance of the politics of that time. Jinnah played the Muslim card successfully because the British helped him to do so. Post partition violence does not dilute the independence movement of its non violent nature.

I think no Indian would ever dare to deny the contribution of Gandhiji and that's the reason he is the Father of the Nation. But, by saying so I would add that when we term the contribution made by others like Bose, Bhagat Singh, Lala Lajpat Rai and unlimited other freedom fighters as small one then we are humiliating those greats. One may not support their style of movement but demeaning their contribution is basically uncalled for.

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

I think no Indian would ever dare to deny the contribution of Gandhiji and that's the reason he is the Father of the Nation. But, by saying so I would add that when we term the contribution made by others like Bose, Bhagat Singh, Lala Lajpat Rai and unlimited other freedom fighters as small one then we are humiliating those greats. One may not support their style of movement but demeaning their contribution is basically uncalled for.

That has always been the case because it did not suit the Nehru family which took full advantage and glowed under Gandhi's ¹  name..

Who has ever stated that the contribution of others than Gandhi and his colleauges was small.?  please give examples

vijay wrote:

Who has ever stated that the contribution of others than Gandhi and his colleauges was small.?  please give examples

For the example you asked for, I would copy paste from your first comment on this thread: 

The actions of Bhagat Singh, later on of Subash Bose and Naval Mutiny etc., were isolated attempts but they added to the overall movement for independence. It has become a fashion these days in self styled champions to deny the main architects of the freedom movement their due recognition but keep harping about much smaller contributions making them look as if it was they who were responsible for ejecting the British.

i am happy you quoted the full para and not the latter part only. I am trying to differentiate between a planned movement led by Gandhi from 1915/16 till 1947 for freedom and the individual or small group attempts by martyrs like Bhagat Singh. It is in this context I have said latter were smaller contributions. They were individually heroic acts. After all, the most precious possession of their life they gave up for the country. How can I ever even think of belittling them. As a young student I remember tears welling up in my eyes when I watched the scene of Bhagat Singh being led to the gallows in the Manoj Kumar film on him. It is only in the overall freedom movement that I said there are larger and smaller contributions which together added up to the entire freedom movement. Hope i have made myself clear. My apologies if you felt otherwise.

The advantage Gandhiji , Nehru and others who were part of the freedom moment was education. They were able to use it to their advantage, thereby unifying the entire nation . However, the freedom moment began much earlier by the smaller kingdoms that felt the injustice of the British rule and other self respecting citizens like Bhagat Singh fought till their end thereby making the citizens realise that there was need to oppose the rule with force.

vijay wrote:

i am happy you quoted the full para and not the latter part only. I am trying to differentiate between a planned movement led by Gandhi from 1915/16 till 1947 for freedom and the individual or small group attempts by martyrs like Bhagat Singh. It is in this context I have said latter were smaller contributions. They were individually heroic acts. After all, the most precious possession of their life they gave up for the country. How can I ever even think of belittling them. As a young student I remember tears welling up in my eyes when I watched the scene of Bhagat Singh being led to the gallows in the Manoj Kumar film on him. It is only in the overall freedom movement that I said there are larger and smaller contributions which together added up to the entire freedom movement. Hope i have made myself clear. My apologies if you felt otherwise.

Everyone is free to express their own opinion regarding any issue. Even from your first post it is clear that you give credit to other freedom fighters too but I expressed my displeasure regarding the use of the word 'small contribution'. I feel that these fighters sent a strong signal to the Britishers that if there was Gandhi on one hand with non-violence weapon then on the other hand there was another set of leaders who were revolutionaries. So, either way it was a threat to the British regime about which they became very much aware. This whole process forced them to leave India. Those who didn't believe in non-violence does not mean that they were non-achievers rather they were great achievers who did not fight only with the outsiders but also faced criticism from the insiders, their own countrymen, but still they were determined to fight for India's freedom.   

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

vijay wrote:

i am happy you quoted the full para and not the latter part only. I am trying to differentiate between a planned movement led by Gandhi from 1915/16 till 1947 for freedom and the individual or small group attempts by martyrs like Bhagat Singh. It is in this context I have said latter were smaller contributions. They were individually heroic acts. After all, the most precious possession of their life they gave up for the country. How can I ever even think of belittling them. As a young student I remember tears welling up in my eyes when I watched the scene of Bhagat Singh being led to the gallows in the Manoj Kumar film on him. It is only in the overall freedom movement that I said there are larger and smaller contributions which together added up to the entire freedom movement. Hope i have made myself clear. My apologies if you felt otherwise.

Everyone is free to express their own opinion regarding any issue. Even from your first post it is clear that you give credit to other freedom fighters too but I expressed my displeasure regarding the use of the word 'small contribution'. I feel that these fighters sent a strong signal to the Britishers that if there was Gandhi on one hand with non-violence weapon then on the other hand there was another set of leaders who were revolutionaries. So, either way it was a threat to the British regime about which they became very much aware. This whole process forced them to leave India. Those who didn't believe in non-violence does not mean that they were non-achievers rather they were great achievers who did not fight only with the outsiders but also faced criticism from the insiders, their own countrymen, but still they were determined to fight for India's freedom.   

Some of them like Jahnsi Rani, Kittur Chennamma and Bhagat Singh sacrificed their lives for the sake of freedom to their nation ..

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

It goes without saying that India attained independence under leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. But it will be a fallacy to say that the British would leave India unless compelled. They had reluctantly to transfer power to Indian leaders. The international circumstances compelled the British to surrender to the independence movement. The Naval mutiny had its impact.  The Azad Hind Fauz led by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had many British Indian soldiers in its ranks. So British could not trust the Indians employed in armed forces.  The impact of armed revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Chandra shekhar Azad can hardly be over stated.  

Gandhi's contribution is overrated.In "the last days of the British Raj" by Leonard Mosley it is clear that the only reason the British left India was the unreliability of the British Indian armed forces. Gandhi was a old blabbering man who was allowed to continue by the British. Justice Katju's blog also highlights this. In fact he refers to Gandhi as a stooge of the English. This may be farfetched but remember the British granted independence by a an act of parliament passed by both houses in the UK. 

usha manohar wrote:

Shampa Sadhya wrote:

vijay wrote:

i am happy you quoted the full para and not the latter part only. I am trying to differentiate between a planned movement led by Gandhi from 1915/16 till 1947 for freedom and the individual or small group attempts by martyrs like Bhagat Singh. It is in this context I have said latter were smaller contributions. They were individually heroic acts. After all, the most precious possession of their life they gave up for the country. How can I ever even think of belittling them. As a young student I remember tears welling up in my eyes when I watched the scene of Bhagat Singh being led to the gallows in the Manoj Kumar film on him. It is only in the overall freedom movement that I said there are larger and smaller contributions which together added up to the entire freedom movement. Hope i have made myself clear. My apologies if you felt otherwise.

Everyone is free to express their own opinion regarding any issue. Even from your first post it is clear that you give credit to other freedom fighters too but I expressed my displeasure regarding the use of the word 'small contribution'. I feel that these fighters sent a strong signal to the Britishers that if there was Gandhi on one hand with non-violence weapon then on the other hand there was another set of leaders who were revolutionaries. So, either way it was a threat to the British regime about which they became very much aware. This whole process forced them to leave India. Those who didn't believe in non-violence does not mean that they were non-achievers rather they were great achievers who did not fight only with the outsiders but also faced criticism from the insiders, their own countrymen, but still they were determined to fight for India's freedom.   

Some of them like Jahnsi Rani, Kittur Chennamma and Bhagat Singh sacrificed their lives for the sake of freedom to their nation ..

Yes, there was one Jatin Das the revolutionary who died after 63 days of hunger strike in Lahore jail and there were unnumbered people who gave their lives for India's freedom. The worst part is some are remembered only through text books and movies and that's it but numerous heroes are entirely forgotten. This is real tragedy that our freedom struggle is basically presented as one man show. Even after so many years of Gandhiji's death no one denies his contribution which is laudable but with it all others should receive their due too. Every now and then the other patriots pose threat to the British regime which was quite a big trouble for them. Gandhi and his followers were not only the cause for the Britishers to leave India rather a combined effort of one and all freedom fighters at every front made them quit India.

In fact many Citizens of those times carried out their own protests. My grand father used to tell how they stopped buying British made clothes since cotton taken from India was spun and the material sold at higher cost ..They began making jute threads and spinning cotton at home . These were small measures but unless everyone pooled in, it is not easy for a nation to put up an effective fight. 

Yes India's freedom struggle was indeed a participative one and millions joined or obeyed the call of leaders. That added to the movement becoming pan India and exerting cumulative pressure on the British to get out. It is here where the role of Gandhiji becomes important for being able to draw such massive participation from across India.

There is no doubt that Gandhiji became the face of freedom struggle in the later years but the struggle had already begun by the smaller rulers and Mughals who felt threatened about their superiority as rulers. It is this and the people's movement, added to which the enlightenment that Gandhi, Nehru and other leaders of the time got through education , which intensified the freedom struggle.

But for the 1857 resistance there was no movement for freedom till Gandhi galvanised a petition submitting Congress into a freedom seeking party. I have often wondered why Gandhiji is denied his due by bringing in stray fights by zealous Indians in a sporadic manner, for comparison. No one denies the individual acts of courage but would that have brought in freedom? very difficult to understand these type of bigoted views being propagated repeatedly by self opinionated handful of persons.

It is not a handful nor self opinionated people but quite a large number who  rcognize all who were part of the freedom movement and many laid their lives whereas the top leaders who survived reaped the benefits that followed the freedom and years of struggle by others who did as much and sacrificed much more ..

vijay wrote:

But for the 1857 resistance there was no movement for freedom till Gandhi galvanised a petition submitting Congress into a freedom seeking party. I have often wondered why Gandhiji is denied his due by bringing in stray fights by zealous Indians in a sporadic manner, for comparison. No one denies the individual acts of courage but would that have brought in freedom? very difficult to understand these type of bigoted views being propagated repeatedly by self opinionated handful of persons.

Gandhi was real leader of masses and Bhagat singh was a true revolutionary. As a mass leader Gandhiji must get full credit for successful independence movement. The 1857 independence war was really not a mass movement or war. This was between British East India Company and the local rulers. People were generally not involved. If soldiers like Mangal Pandey were really so patriotic, they would not be in East India company army. They revolted not for any patriotic feeling. This revolt was for religious reason like use of animal fat in weapons. There were rumors of use of cow and pig meat in weapons. The revolt for such reasons based on rumors cannot be termed freedom war. 

In which colonized country the leaders who led the freedom movement turned into paupers after the country won freedom that India is seen as an exception. They also benefited as did the entire free population did.

There are many opinions and controversies regarding the role played by Gandhiji in the freedom struggle..He has been termed as being a puppet in British hands and so on..

Clement Atlee, the British prime minster who decided to finally quit India, was very clear that Gandhi is not what he’s cracked up to be. After India’s independence in 1947, the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court asked Atlee about Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Atlee had only one word to say: “M-i-n-i-m-a-l”. He said the principal reasons why Britain decided to quit India was the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the army and navy personnel(some scholars here are so smart that I guess they were leaders of Labour party so would even disregard what Atlee said and elaborating on some lara lappa )

India subcontinent got independence owing to the condition in Britain and the age of austerity that followed it.

( source)