It is with this intention that i try to bring out some comparisons between India's freedom struggle and present political scenario.
The main reasons for the failure of the revolt was 'Disunity'. every group fought, but separately and with a separate motives. Sepoy fought for their rights in the army. Princely states fought for their sovereignty. Peasants revolted because of the heavy taxes that were being levied on them. Thus the British could easily suppress us.
It was again in 1916 lucknow session that they joined again.But the damage was already done. Their was wide spread Hindu- Muslim disunity because of the formation Muslim League in 1906. It was further aggravated by the Minto-Morley reforms which introduced for the first time separate electorate for the Muslims (Foundation stone for reservations).
There were revolutionaries who were becoming impatient because of Gandhiji's Non violent protests. The chauri chaura act brought the whole Non Cooperation Movement to an end.
I personally condemn Gandhi for this. I understand that violence is not the way to get freedom, but what if the silent marches go unheard??? I recently read one book written by Gandhi for students, in which he terms the acts of Bhagat Singh as Terrorism. I ask him, has he ever seen a terrorist?
Bhagat never ever killed people. He assassinated a British Officer. They were very cautious while attacking also. There is no comparison between a terrorist and a patriot like Bhagat. Jallianwala bagh massacre was an act of terrorism.
Now coming back to present day situation, we have telangana movement being compared to the National struggle. Students are being asked to leave their studies to join the movement similar to the student movements in 1947. I fail to understand which act is correct? I see no difference between 1947 and 2010...but still i feel that 1947 was justified but 2010 is politcised... someone plz elaborate on this...
Terrorism means "use of violence or intimidation" (Oxford English Dictionary). One who practices terrorism is a terrorist. The definition put forth by you is the more modern one that came after the Mahatma's time. Hence Gandhiji cannot be entirely wrong in usage of the word.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the person they killed was a police officer. It is an officers duty to follow what he is commanded to do. No doubt what he did was an genocide of first order by killing many innocent people in the Jallianwala Bagh. But then to go eye for an eye only leaves everyone blind.
Now think of the people who were dependent on that police officer. Will they call Bhagat Singh's act as terrorism? if the anwer depends on which side of fence you are then that is not the right answer.
Lastly, as i have said in another comment Mahatma stood for transformation of INDIANS not only freedom of India. hence he couldn't have tolerated extremism and violence even if they were for Freedom. The journey was as important as the goal. Hence, he called of the Non-cooperation movement and his reaction towards Bhagat Singh was stern.
On Chauri Chaura, the important thing to note is that the visionary in mahatma saw something unhealthy in the fabric of Indian mentality that resulted in the incident. Once you have the power, and if you do not know to put a leash on it will soon run to grab you. So, if the mob power was not contained at that point many more such incidents would taken place, lives lost and much ground covered might have been lost.
Why not use force to remove the British? There are several examples from US,France to USSR, where force had been used at some point to gain freedom and they all went through times of civil war and strife. But not India, for the basis of its formation was non-violence and truth. See our neighbours and see us. Why is the condition of Indians much better than other in terms of democratic rights, Govt. institutions. I hope the answer is clear.