India, The Daughter Of The Mahatma

[pizzalot]

"Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth." A Einstein.

How true indeed. We can scacely believe what he and more so considering the way he did. It looks as though his life and story were nothing more than a myth. No one after him had lived the life of "half-naked fakir" and yet commanded the love and affection of all the people of the sub-continent. He had not ignored the interest of anyone. A poor farmer could walk into his house cry, laugh or simply chat with him any time of the day. Muslim men and women sat around him and sung praises of Ram. We have not seen another leader yet, to rival his simplicity. Unlike the modern politicians, he never compromised for his self and let down the trust that the people had on him.

Sure, he was no God. Nor was he the best of the breed. There was always a leader more committed to one sect of people. But as a whole they failed to rival his impressions on the people. He was the "Perfect Man" if you consider everything. As a Nation India must be greatful to him not only at birth but for her very existence even today. While North, South, East and West disagreeing on everything, including race, culture and religion, there is one thing that is common to all of us. That is the reverence to Mahatma Gandhi, The Father Of India, in single voice. We had not existed before him. Nothing can ever tarnish the image of our beloved Mahatma from the hearts of the millions in India. for the day that happens, India may not remain as a nation anymore. Atleast for our own selfish reason, if not for anyother reason, we must refrain from desecrating Mahatma.

Only a fool or the cunning will desecrate his name and still acclaim himself as the patriot of India.

[Nakeeran]

[tscii:d2b96029eb]Pizzalot

Its sad that today, some of Mahatma’s decisions taken then are being criticized .
I feel , ridiculing Gandhiji has become a habit now
Those who criticize him should better rewind back & go exactly to the prevailed scneraior & then open their mouth

Its not so easy to unite a diversified country, bits & pieces everywhere with multiple languages, interests to bring them together as one unit & fight for a common cause.. Only Mahatma could do it….

There are 2 schools of thought of late that Subash Chandra Bose way of countering the Britishers was better …. I shudder to think about the consequences if we had followed the Netaji way ….India would have had another Hiroshima Nagasaki

The greatness of Mahatma lies from the fact that he was bold enough to admit all his past mistakes ..WHICH LEADER HAD THAT GUTS TO ADMIT HIS FAULTS ??

Another misnomer is the events which led to his assassination…… After independence, Gandhiji had little role to play as he was already sidelined virtually. Only Nehru was listening to him to some extent

ONE FACT IS FOR SURE….. THE FOREIGNERS KNOW MORE ABOUT GANDHIJI THAN OUR THANKLESS INDIANS
[/tscii:d2b96029eb]

[dsath]

[tscii:6eff4d9b95]Well well Gandhi was a great personality indeed. No denying that. It is not correct to compare Gandhi with other politicians, because he was not a politician at all.
Also we can't credit India's Independence to solely Gandhi's leadership. There are other numerous factors which played a role in attaining our 'Independence'.
What our history books teach us is unending loyalty to Gandhi in the name of 'Father of our Nation', 'Mahatma'. In other words we derive information only from one source. Is it not a coincidence that as India became more open (in terms of information) that criticism about Gandhi’s policies started increasing?
I am neither for the ahmisa Gandhi(did he really believe that the British were going to leave by lining up Indians to be jailed or lathi charged) or the militant Bose (whatever was he thinking by sidelining with Hitler).
So my view is that we had no 'leader' who won us Independence. We are short of leaders, had we had a good one, we would have been a different country now.
One person who got mass following was Gandhi and we should acknowledge that. Anyway every nation needs a leader figure to aspire for and i am glad we got one whatever may be his merits and de-merits.[/tscii:6eff4d9b95]

[Nakeeran]

Dsath

We also had great leaders like Nehru, Sardar Patel, Bose , Rajendra Prasad, Rajaji, Morarjee, Jaiprakash Narayan , Kamaraj , Tilak etc.......

but still we needed someone who could bind the above stalwarts together & voice the sentiments of 30 crore populated country ...

IT WAS MAHATMA

I am damn convinced on one fact....If we had followed the Netaji path, it would have been another LTTE-Srilanka ... a never ending struggle ....Sad .....

Besides, we didnt have enough support those days internationally if we had chosen the arms route to getting freedom....

By the beginning of the 1940s, the main issue internationally was Adolf Hitler & other issues were secondary....

The Allies needed to join together to eliminate Hitler & it was a wise decision on our leaders for having supported British at this phase. Else it would have been disaster

Several countries in Africa viewed Mahatma as A ROLE MODEL FOR GETTING THEIR FREEDOM.

Ultimately, its ironical that a foreigner had to take a movie on our Mahatma ! no wonder , it swept all awards !

[dsath]

We also had great leaders like Nehru, Sardar Patel, Bose , Rajendra Prasad, Rajaji, Morarjee, Jaiprakash Narayan , Kamaraj , Tilak etc.......

but still we needed someone who could bind the above stalwarts together & voice the sentiments of 30 crore populated country ...

IT WAS MAHATMA

There were many leaders who opted out of Congress - Gandhian policies. One such person whom i have great respect for is the Tamil poet Bharathiar. It would not be correct to call Gandhi the only voice of India.



I am damn convinced on one fact....If we had followed the Netaji path, it would have been another LTTE-Srilanka ... a never ending struggle ....Sad .....

What we would have become is something that we don't know. Just guess thats all.


Besides, we didnt have enough support those days internationally if we had chosen the arms route to getting freedom....

A country as big as India does not need international help. How on Earth did the Vietnamese chase the Americans out?



By the beginning of the 1940s, the main issue internationally was Adolf Hitler & other issues were secondary....

The Allies needed to join together to eliminate Hitler & it was a wise decision on our leaders for having supported British at this phase. Else it would have been disaster

The british did not ask the Indian leaders for support. They didn't have to. Initially Gandhi and Nehru protested India's participation in the war and later they supported the British only on moral grounds. So it wouldn't have mattered if the Congress opted to do nothing.
India would have been shaped differently had we got our freedom before the war. It should be remembered that we did not 'win' freedom, the British could no longer have the costly jewel on their crown and they simply threw it away(when it became a nuisance). I am intrigued as to why any of our national leaders at that point of time failed to get a better bargain.


Several countries in Africa viewed Mahatma as A ROLE MODEL FOR GETTING THEIR FREEDOM.

Ultimately, its ironical that a foreigner had to take a movie on our Mahatma ! no wonder , it swept all awards !
I am happy we have a ROLE MODEL, something for the younger generation to aspire for. It gives us hope for the future, hope for a great leader who will assure in a glorious India.

[podalangai]

There were many leaders who opted out of Congress - Gandhian policies. One such person whom i have great respect for is the Tamil poet Bharathiar. It would not be correct to call Gandhi the only voice of India.
This was particularly true in the South. Va. Vu. Si. was also an ardent follower of Tilak, rather than being a Gandhian. If you compare Gandhiadikal to the elder generation of stalwarts, he was much closer to Gokhakle than Tilak in the moderates vs extremists split.

I also read that 75% of the INA's soldiers were Tamils, including many who had migrated to Burma.

I think the fact that different ideologies were strong in different regions during the freedom fight cannot be denied. This does not reduce the contribution of Mahatma, but to deny this reduces the contribution of other freedom fighters.



Besides, we didnt have enough support those days internationally if we had chosen the arms route to getting freedom....

Sari thaan saar, anaal irandaam ulakapporil england muzhusa naasam aakaamal irundhirundhaal 47-il nammakku viduthalai kidaitthirukkuma? It was only the combination of war devastation, a Labour victory (itself caused by war devastation) and the ahimsa that gave it to us. I don't think ahimsa by itself would have borne fruit for decades. What ahimsa gave us was greater international respect for some time after we had independence.



The british did not ask the Indian leaders for support. They didn't have to. Initially Gandhi and Nehru protested India's participation in the war and later they supported the British only on moral grounds.
Gandhiyum porai support pannarkala? I thought that he opposed it even after Singapore had fallen and it seemed that India would be attacked. Isn't it true that the Congress never gave the British formal support for the war?

[pizzalot]

No. Gandhiji did give moral support for the British against Hitler. His support for the Queen was more on ethical grounds than anyother. Britain herself could have refrained from opposing Hitler. Hitler's philosophy was not anti-colonolism but opposite to that. Even worse than colonolism. Lebensraum. Which means "inhabitate the land and eradicate the locals". Not "ruling" them. Britain was again and again re-assured by Hitler that he was not against her colonialism. Yet, Britain and later America declared war, and asked nothing but Hitler's surrender/death because by 1938 Britain's morals about colonialism and human rights had awaken at home. Even before it happened in India.

Japan during WWII was playing the same Hitler band-wagon. Millions of Chinese were massacred (Chinese Holocaust). Any man with moral values should have refrained from supporting the Axis.

Any fight against lebensraum was worth the cause even if it is against our own nation.

Netaji went to Germany but yet could not meet with Hitler. He went to the camp where Indian soldier prisoners were held and asked them to support and die for Germany fighting the British, as they would die anyway in the hands of the Nazis. I wonder where Netaji was taking us. Even if we had obtained freedom through him, I am not sure if we would have seen India as a democracy.

Dsath, the moral support he gave to the British DID matter. It was the headline news in Britain when he announced it.

[Badri]

It should be remembered that we did not 'win' freedom, the British could no longer have the costly jewel on their crown and they simply threw it away(when it became a nuisance). I am intrigued as to why any of our national leaders at that point of time failed to get a better bargain.

:exactly:

Gandhi entered the scene well in advance but nothing happened, as long as the British Gov was strong enough!

If one views the history impartially, one will understand that England's sheer inability to hold all the colonies anymore was the primary reason for our independence.

The independence movement was an irritation. When the wound was already festering, the independence struggle itch was just that final thing that made the British Government give it all up!

This is not to undermine the contribution of all the people who struggled for freedom. :notthatway:

Their persistence was the proverbial last straw that ultimately broke the British camel's back.

We can judge the importance of that one last straw however we want!

[dsath]

Pizza, Gandhi's moral support may well have made it to the headlines, but at the ground political level didn't make any difference (at least that is what I think).
Podalangai you are right that many INA members were Tamilians. My granny's brother was with the British Indian army who later defected to the INA. He lost his hearing in the war. My granny used to tell us stories of waiting for her brother to come home and how he brought some exotic things when he finally came back. But then we were all very young and it was an amusing story to us nothing more.

Badri i certainly agree with you about our independence movement. Even though it was not the only factor, it was also a factor to India becoming free. And as Podalangai said we have to acknowledge the other movements in India as well.
At the end of the day when one looks at the black and white pictures of Gandhi/Nehru/Bose (all the satyagraha pictures, Gandhi spinning his wheel and the INA army marching) we get a sense of pride in being Indian and i think that is the symbol of united India.

[podalangai]

No. Gandhiji did give moral support for the British against Hitler.
He offered conditional non-violent moral support. He did not support the war effort. They are very different things.


Any fight against lebensraum was worth the cause even if it is against our own nation.
But Mahatma and the Congress both refused to join this fight saying that Churchill was being hypocritical. I do not criticise them for it, but it seems like you do.


Even if we had obtained freedom through him, I am not sure if we would have seen India as a democracy.
All we can say is that we will never know.

[podalangai]

If one views the history impartially, one will understand that England's sheer inability to hold all the colonies anymore was the primary reason for our independence.

I think if there had not been a Labour Party victory in 1945, the British would have found some way to hold on to India for until the late 50s at least.

[dsath]

I think if there had not been a Labour Party victory in 1945, the British would have found some way to hold on to India for until the late 50s at least.
Very true. It was in the Labour party manifesto. Actually Atlee wanted to get out of India as soon as possible and thats why he brought Mountbatten on the job. Mountbatten had his own personal ambitions in establishing his family in the royal house, so he played to Atlee's tunes.
What i am not able to comprehend is that, surely the Indian leaders should have been aware of this, then why did we settle for less? Lack of vision may be or was it just vain pride or hunger for power??????

Even our constitution is a replica of the British model.What do we call this ---- insanity??????????
The only sensible thing was combining geographical areas on linguistic lines.
I don't have anything against Gandhi's ahmisa policy. In a world of war he stood alone with a message of peace, which is remarkable. It requires lots of courage to do that. But why i wouldn't refer Gandhi by his 'title' was that he let India down when it mattered most, during Independence. Why didn't he use his clout to get us a better bargain from the British? Why-o-why?
If he didn't have any clout then, he should remembered for his policies as a 'Mahatma' rather than what he did for India as 'Father of Nation'. He can be either one not both.

[podalangai]

What i am not able to comprehend is that, surely the Indian leaders should have been aware of this, then why did we settle for less?

Why didn't he use his clout to get us a better bargain from the British? Why-o-why?
Enakku puriyavillai! Can you please explain what we should have asked for from the British which we did not get? :)

[kannannn]

Enakku puriyavillai! Can you please explain what we should have asked for from the British which we did not get? :)
For starters, settle the Kashmir question once and for all..

[podalangai]

Enakku puriyavillai! Can you please explain what we should have asked for from the British which we did not get? :)
For starters, settle the Kashmir question once and for all..
How was that the fault of the British? Every raja had the right to decide who to join. How could the British have decided which kingdom would join India and which would join Pakistan?

[kannannn]

The British left India in a mess. Partition was half-way through, the Kashmiri King was in double-mind, and a host of other issues remained unsolved. The British pulled out without establishing peace. They could have seen the end of partition through, they could have persuaded the King of Kashmir to come to a conclusion and waited for Indian troops to arrive there.. the list goes on..

[dsath]

Thats my contention as well. The Kashmir king initially asked the british for support, but the British requested India to provide that and thats the reason we are in the mess right now. As Kannann said why did the British not deploy troops when every one knew that India was boiling in religious tensions? Why did not Gandhi (and the other Indian leaders) request/demand the British to station troops? And at the end of the day what did we get ----'Common wealth' nation status. Ah well all is not lost we get to win some medals in Common wealth games.

[podalangai]

The British left India in a mess. Partition was half-way through, the Kashmiri King was in double-mind, and a host of other issues remained unsolved. The British pulled out without establishing peace. They could have seen the end of partition through, they could have persuaded the King of Kashmir to come to a conclusion and waited for Indian troops to arrive there.. the list goes on..
How could they persuade the King to come to a conclusion? Who would wait for Indian troops to arrive? Mountbatten? What good would his presence have done? They didn't have an army - their army had become the Indian and Pakistani armies!

Left without peace... the British's first option was not to partition India. Remember the Cabinet Mission Plan? It was our wonderful leaders of the time who figured partition would be better. And with the army itself being split, no human being could have kept peace in India then.

The only way they could have do anything productive would be to delay independence until 1948 or 1949. I think pushing it ahead to 1947 was a mistake. But Labour would not have agreed to delay it, and there was nothing any Indians could have done to force them. I am asking again: in concrete terms, what more could we have gotten from them?

[dsath]

I am asking again: in concrete terms, what more could we have gotten from them?
1.Deploy British troops in areas of high tension esp Bengal and Punjab.
2.Give us our due compensation for having supported them in WWII, in terms of monetary benefit. Instead they set up commonwealth which was simply an eye wash.
3.Push for talks between the leaders. They did not care for that but the british actually wanted India to be divided and thats one of the reason that 1946 talks failed.
4.Why was Wavell's plan put it in the bin?
5.You are right, the british could not force the Raja of Kashmir. But when he requested the British to help, why did they not send troops to help Kashmir. If India had stayed out of Kashmir may be history could have been different.

[kannannn]

Left without peace... the British's first option was not to partition India. Remember the Cabinet Mission Plan? It was our wonderful leaders of the time who figured partition would be better. And with the army itself being split, no human being could have kept peace in India then.

The British had two plans. First, to combine the regions of India into provinces based on religion and the second to partition India into two countries. This was as early as 1946. Note that the Muslim League wanted to go with the second plan later and organised the Direct Action Day in 1946. Nothing was done to quell the riots and murders that resulted. The British still had the army in their hands through the government at that time. That was the starting point of all tensions. Infact, the Britishers knew even before the partition that Kashmir would be a potential source of tension. They could have asked the King to think of a solution in 1946 itself.

[podalangai]

I want to be clear that I am not saying that the British were angels or that they were not responsible for the problems. But there are two things. Firstly, our leaders were in a weak bargaining position, not a strong one like you say. The British did not even NEED our consent to leave India. They could just have pulled out if they pleased! And they knew this! This was a threat Mountbatten made many times, that the British would set the timetable for withdrawal as it suited them. Our leaders could not bargain against this!

Secondly, our leaders made a mess of what we got from the British. This makes me skeptical of whether things would have been any better even if they had been able to bargain better. The only thing which would have saved us was a transition which took another two or three years. But they could not bargain for this because of the point I made above.

Please read my replies below in the context of these two points. :)



1.Deploy British troops in areas of high tension esp Bengal and Punjab.
Engirindhu vandhirikkum indha padai? Are you saying they should have sent their army from Europe? They could not have - what was not occupying Germany was being demobilised so a civilian economy could be restarted. The British Indian army was big and better able to operate in Indian. Its ineffectiveness was because the command was split at OUR insistence. If there had been a transitional unified command until 1950 or so things would have been different.


2.Give us our due compensation for having supported them in WWII, in terms of monetary benefit. Instead they set up commonwealth which was simply an eye wash.
The Congress refused to give more than moral support to the British in WW-2, and openly accused them of hypocrisy! From what position should they demand material benefit? Because Indians gave material support despite the opposition of our leaders?


3.Push for talks between the leaders. They did not care for that but the british actually wanted India to be divided and thats one of the reason that 1946 talks failed.
Division when they ruled suited them and they encouraged it, but I don't agree that they wanted India to be partitioned. People like Wavell were against it. I think it is more correct to say that Atlee did not care what happened to India as long as the UK left.

There was a very big problem on the talks from our side as well. We were not prepared to make any concessions! Read Nehru's speech in the Constituent Assembly Debates in response to the Cabinet Mission Plan! How can you expect to solve a problem if you do not want to move and your only solution is that the other side must accept the correctness of your position?


4.Why was Wavell's plan put it in the bin?
Very simple. Labour's domestic agenda was for a quick withdrawal, and they forced it to be quick. That is why they went for Mountbatten and forgot Wavell who would have taken time. This was the last great wrong which the British Raj inflicted upon India, where in leaving they callously tossed us to the lions to suit their agenda. But there was nothing our leaders could have done about it.


5.You are right, the british could not force the Raja of Kashmir. But when he requested the British to help, why did they not send troops to help Kashmir. If India had stayed out of Kashmir may be history could have been different.
We had taken over their army here. I don't think they had troops to send or money to send troops from Europe. If we had agreed to their suggestion of a joint command, it would have been different. On the point of the army, I think it is wrong to point a finger at them because the problem was caused by our rejecting their advice.

[podalangai]

The British had two plans. First, to combine the regions of India into provinces based on religion and the second to partition India into two countries. This was as early as 1946.
Initially their first preference was to have a loose federation. The partition plan was originally only a fallback of last resort if everything else failed, and also a threat to Jinnah to see the futility of the demand.


Note that the Muslim League wanted to go with the second plan later and organised the Direct Action Day in 1946. Nothing was done to quell the riots and murders that resulted. The British still had the army in their hands through the government at that time. That was the starting point of all tensions.
You're right when you say "later" because things were different at first. Actually, I think the ferocity of the Direct Action violence took everyone except its planners by surprise, the Congress and the British never expected it to get that bloody or for law and order to deteriorate so quickly. The Interim Government should itself have recommended provision to be made, but they did not because they also failed to foresee it.

The army could still have saved things if it was going to continue being under a unified command. The moment its division was agreed it became a useless tool in quelling violence. This is the real tragedy of the violence.


Infact, the Britishers knew even before the partition that Kashmir would be a potential source of tension. They could have asked the King to think of a solution in 1946 itself.
I think this goes back to my point that they made us pay the price for their hurry. At least partition should have come before independence. But that did not suit their timetable, and unfortunately we had no ability to bargain on this point.

[crazy]

I am damn convinced on one fact....If we had followed the Netaji path, it would have been another LTTE-Srilanka ... a never ending struggle ....Sad .....

What we would have become is something that we don't know. Just guess thats all.



:roll: :huh: :oops2: :shhh: :? :omg:

[dsath]

I want to be clear that I am not saying that the British were angels or that they were not responsible for the problems. But there are two things. Firstly, our leaders were in a weak bargaining position, not a strong one like you say. The British did not even NEED our consent to leave India. They could just have pulled out if they pleased! And they knew this! This was a threat Mountbatten made many times, that the British would set the timetable for withdrawal as it suited them. Our leaders could not bargain against this!

Hmm that is true to an extent. If our leaders were in fact in a weak bargaining position then how can we glorify them? Cunning and tact has to be won by that and none in our pack were prepared to do that. Thats why i think we never had a strong leader with a vision in the last 500 years or so. So how can we portray them as 'Great'.


Secondly, our leaders made a mess of what we got from the British. This makes me skeptical of whether things would have been any better even if they had been able to bargain better. The only thing which would have saved us was a transition which took another two or three years. But they could not bargain for this because of the point I made above.

Any leader who fought hard for what he achieved will know the value of it enough not to make a mess. To our leaders it was placed in a platter and good God they made a mess of handling it.




1.Deploy British troops in areas of high tension esp Bengal and Punjab.
Engirindhu vandhirikkum indha padai? Are you saying they should have sent their army from Europe? They could not have - what was not occupying Germany was being demobilised so a civilian economy could be restarted. The British Indian army was big and better able to operate in Indian. Its ineffectiveness was because the command was split at OUR insistence. If there had been a transitional unified command until 1950 or so things would have been different.

Can't argue with that. Gandhi and the other leaders were taken in by the partition of Germany and thought it was inevitable. Partition or more than that handling of it was the greatest mistake ever.



2.Give us our due compensation for having supported them in WWII, in terms of monetary benefit. Instead they set up commonwealth which was simply an eye wash.
The Congress refused to give more than moral support to the British in WW-2, and openly accused them of hypocrisy! From what position should they demand material benefit? Because Indians gave material support despite the opposition of our leaders?

True, but at the end of the day India did help Britian and we had the cards on our table, just happened to pick up the wrong one.


There was a very big problem on the talks from our side as well. We were not prepared to make any concessions! Read Nehru's speech in the Constituent Assembly Debates in response to the Cabinet Mission Plan! How can you expect to solve a problem if you do not want to move and your only solution is that the other side must accept the correctness of your position?

That has been one of the main reasons for partition. The Congress was never willing to accommodate neither the opposition/minority nor any dissent. Many leaders left Congress for the same reason. For some strange reason Gandhi was never comfortable with anyone except Nehru as the head of Congress.


We had taken over their army here. I don't think they had troops to send or money to send troops from Europe. If we had agreed to their suggestion of a joint command, it would have been different. On the point of the army, I think it is wrong to point a finger at them because the problem was caused by our rejecting their advice.
Did the British suggest a unified army? Didn't know abt that, could you tell us more P?