[manson]

Originally Posted by gkrishn

This "british gave railways to india" thing is a compelete BS, in my opinion. They didnt do that for charity. It was very important for their *trade* and hence they built it.

one main reason was to even transport soldiers from one place to another, basically to handle crisis.

manson.

[adya33]

In his youth, he did trade path of using weapons, but he realized that weapons are no match to superior and far better organized military strength of British.

meaning after this he started his war agianst british without weapons
isn't that ahimsa?

& I still think that weapons WAS the way to go get rid of British early.

[merve_extreme]

i think the main topic was how the british built beautiful engineering marvel?

i think as engineers they vere brilliant.i specially admire Isambard Kingdom Brunel.the british railway engineer.

[RX135]

Merve and Samurai, Many a times I thought I would reply on your posts, but by the time I used to gather and put together my thoughts, I used to get confused about who is saying what. Heck, I was never more confused on T-BHP before

I am glad that you both agreed with V1p3r aka V13rp aka Viper aka Wiper, and decided to end a dabate which appeared to unmask personal overtones than debating the actual topic. May be an online forum is not enough for such complex discussions and you should meet up personally and settle this out, just like I am going to meet Adya33 and debate a few pending items He keeps on reminding me, but I have managed to steer clear so far.

[adya33]

just like I am going to meet Adya33 and debate a few pending items He keeps on reminding me, but I have managed to steer clear so far.

i haven't forgot it.
was it the reason why you skipped last meet?

[merve_extreme]

yes forum is not a right place for arguments that have lot of controversial issues.because it gives a moral advantage to the last person posting the reply and then when u read it u just cannot control ur thoughts and immediately post a reply.

on a forum it requires great contol on both sides to keep the argument off personal levels.i admit i dont have this control as yet,so i decided to stop it.

[RX135]

Originally Posted by adya33

meaning after this he started his war agianst british without weapons
isn't that ahimsa?
& I still think that weapons WAS the way to go get rid of British early.

No, Gandhian ahimsa is different. It was not out of compulsion. For Gandhi, Ahimsa was a principle. For Tilak, this was the more useful and convenient way of gathering people together. Interestingly, at the start of his career, Tilak even made mild use of force against his political enemies to establish his supremacy. He thought armtwisting was necessary to chuck out moderates, who were the political leaders that time. If above statements are read at face value, they seem very absurd and doing injustice to Tilak, but Tilak always had greater picture in mind and he thought such things were necessary.

Incidently, talking of Ahimsa, Gandhiji was ambiguous in 1942 "Chale Jao". When asked if people should try "everything" to throw out British, he did not encourage using force, but then he was not adamant of sticking to ahimsa like 1922 (Chowrichoura(?) incident).

[adya33]

No, Gandhian ahimsa is different. It was not out of compulsion. For Gandhi, Ahimsa was a principle.

may be in case of Tilak the glamour to the word "Ahimsa" was missing.
Besides as you have already said Tilak CHOSE Ahimsa & now you are saying it was out of compulsion. I think choosing & being forced have different meanings
I am confused.

Incidently, talking of Ahimsa, Gandhiji was ambiguous in 1942 "Chale Jao". When asked if people should try "everything" to throw out British, he did not encourage using force, but then he was not adamant of sticking to ahimsa like 1922 (Chowrichoura(?) incident).

are you suggesting that M Gandhi was loosing faith in his Ahimsa way during 40's & hinting to use alternate ways?
because your post seem to indicate that

[manson]

Originally Posted by SMG

True. We could have never gotton Freedom by Gandhiji's way. Main reasons why Brits walk away are:

1> WWII : although UK won that war the damage was beyond any measure.
in that sense Adolf Hitler was one of the main architects for India's freedom.

2> Netaji Subhashchandra raised army and joined hands with japanese army and liberated major part of NE India.

3> Last straw on the camel's back was mutiny of Indian Navy and Army units in entire South India especially Mumbai units.

Bapu's Non violance tactices certainly not helped us to get freedom.

you missed out Bhagat Singh!

manson.

[manson]

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

Even the greatest ruler in human history Alexander,the great was defeted in india,not because he had a small ineffecient army(infact he had a huge one),but because he could not fight elephant mounted soilders and engage in battles around forests.it was not that india has purposely used elephants to defeat him.

can you please stop saying alexander was defeated, as being defeated and returning home due to a revolt in his army after winning a battle are two very different things.
and not sure but i have read somwhere that one great reason for porus' defeat was due to the huge ineffecient elephants, could someone clear my doubt?

manson.

[v1p3r]

If I remember correctly, Chauri Chaura refers here to the incident when 22 policemen were burnt alive inside their station by a frenzied mob. Gandhiji condemned the incident, and called off the whole non-cooperation movement. This, according to many, set the freedom movement back almost a decade.

What we see here is that the Mahatma was so disgusted by the barbaric use of violence (more so upon fellow Indians) that he suspended the movement for which he had tirelessly worked for years, in protest to such a heinous crime.

[merve_extreme]

Originally Posted by manson

can you please stop saying alexander was defeated, as being defeated and returning home due to a revolt in his army after winning a battle are two very different things.
and not sure but i have read somwhere that one great reason for porus' defeat was due to the huge ineffecient elephants, could someone clear my doubt?

manson.

yes i made a mistake.alexander was not defeated in war in india.

[RX135]

may be in case of Tilak the glamour to the word "Ahimsa" was missing. Besides as you have already said Tilak CHOSE Ahimsa & now you are saying it was out of compulsion. I think choosing & being forced have different meanings I am confused.

Yes, word "Ahimsa" got its glamour due to Gandhi. About compulsion, I am referring to the principle of ahimsa. Tilak chose ahimsa since it was more apt tool in that situation. There was no better alternative available at that time, so may be you can say it was compulsion.

are you suggesting that M Gandhi was loosing faith in his Ahimsa way during 40's & hinting to use alternate ways?

I am not sure if he had lost the faith in ahimsa, but he surely had lost faith in british, whom at the start of his political career, he had trusted. Earlier he believed in making peaceful requests to british to gain more rights for indians, since we were part of Queen's empire, but later he was disillusioned.

Edit Note :
Adya33, my laptop battery drained last night, so could not reply you immediately.
V1p3r, you are right about Chourichoura. Gandhiji was idealist as well as shrewd politician (Oxymoron? ). We now say that, it put the independence movement back by decade, but fact also remains that, at that point, British could have crushed the movement, if people used force. May be Gandhiji, being a wise politician, assessed it that way. I dont know.

Many times, I feel, Gandhiji's techniques would have been ineffective, if his opponents were not British but some other ruthless non-democratic rulers.

[adya33]

Adya33, my laptop battery drained last night, so could not reply you immediately.

no problem

Earlier he believed in making peaceful requests to british to gain more rights for indians, since we were part of Queen's empire, but later he was disillusioned.

this is the part which I never liked.
if the indipendance which they were talking about then it doesn't come by begging.
and if DOES anyone belives it then don't feel proud to be a part of Independant country cause it is just a biscuit thrown by British in front of us (just the way you would throw a buiscuit in front of a dog)

[RX135]

Originally Posted by adya33

if the indipendance which they were talking about then it doesn't come by begging.
and if DOES anyone belives it then don't feel proud to be a part of Independant country cause it is just a biscuit thrown by British in front of us (just the way you would throw a buiscuit in front of a dog)

Nope, it certainly didn't come as thrown biscuit. It was hard fought battle. Nothing comes for free