Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Perceptions
Having a different point of view is always so nice if you have the mind to accept others thoughts and ideas. Until recently i was of the opinion that India should have had an armed revolution to get its freedom and only then would we appreciate the freedom. I was talking with my Uncle last sunday and this topic came for discussion. His point of view was this. India being an agrarian society didnt have the people skill for an armed revolution and the mass disobedience usually called as ahimsa was the best strategy to adopt. Point well taken. Analysing again I was thinking werent there enough soilders in the pre-East India company India ? Yes but then only after beating those fellows did East India company become such a super power in India. My heart still bleeds for the valiant heros who fought with arms and believed in an armed revolution. Finally being a student of Strategy i would conclude that the leadership and charisma of Gandhi suceeded in pulling more people for the ahimsa strategy of mass disobediance and not the strategy of armed revolution strategy of Subash Chandra Bose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
>India was not one country prior to 1947. So, there was no question of freedom for all by all. Hyderabad was one country (technically), so was Bizapur, kashmir.. similarly, there were lot of countries existed, all protected by British for their immunity from attacks from other countries.. so, British was a needed devil and there was absolutly no chance of a an armed revolution.... If British were weak enough to let Indians defeat them, French or Dutch or some other would have cashed the opertunity and India would still have remained colonial.. With British, the fact is "Out of all colonialist, British cared better for their colonies ".. and we can not discount the fact that we all knowing English than French or Spanish has helped people like u and me..
What ever Gandhi & Congress party has done was the only best option for unification and revolution. We being a Agrarian and un-agressive society, there weren't many options.
I would like hear more from you on your notion that country is not appreciating freedom.
Correction to your post: East India company was closed after the revolution and British (the queen ) started the ruling. Ofcouse, there was a thin difference between the two.
First of all let me lets remember that everything looks right in retrospect.
The fact that British provided protection against attack from other countries is the way they started colonisation is undeniable. Whether it is from the French , The Dutch or Bizapur, Kashmir etc.. is a matter to be thought on. I dont deny the fact that India's present progress is very much based on the British colonisation after effects.
And about my notion that the country is not appreciating its freedom is in the way we treat our country and our country men. Example we as Indians in India do not keep our city clean which can happen only by starting at Individual level, They way many of us are so uninterested in the nations activities etc.. etc.. The list can go on.
Post a Comment