THE MODERATES HAD FAILED AND SO HAD THE MAHATMA
Can anybody in his sanity believe that this dhoti-clad clan of pious protesters wrested independence from the mighty British which could in conjunction with its allies defeat the earth-shattering Axis Powers? Obviously, this dhoti band (no aspersion being cast on the national dress) could not liberate India but claimed the credit for the exploits of the INA which had truly precipitated conditions for India's eventual freedom. Non-violence and passive resistance was fertile enough in making salt and in spinning yarn but fell short of attaining even a semblance of independence.
My countrymen, read more about the revolutionaries and come to your own conclusions. I keep writing to instigate you into reading, inspire you into thinking and inform you into clarified conception about that which concerns you most, your past, your present and your future which are so intimately linked with the lives of the revolutionaries despite your relative unawareness about the same.
Just reflect this and everything will be crystal clear. Why does free India maintain the armed forces? Why does it go to war when its sovereignty is infringed upon? Why does it not wage passive Gandhian resistance to attempt solving such infringement as the Mahatma had eminently suggested? It is because the measure is impractical and doomed to failure if applied to redress such situations.
Now consider this. If such application to resolve aggression against our nation is considered by the government as being puerile, how on earth do the very same men, donning the cap named after the Mahatma but never ever worn by him, claim that those very non-violent measures had forced the British out of India? A contradiction in terms, is it not?
Any child who knows the basic Newtonian laws of dynamics will tell you that to resist the enemy threatening to invade requires far less force than to evict it once it has secured a permanent footing in the soil.
How on earth is armed action required in independent India to resist the threats of foreign aggression when the very independence was supposedly won by peaceful passive means of non-complying non-violence? Surely, the Government of India has missed a massive measure for maintenance of sovereignty, that which its Mahatma had taught. Or, was he wrong all the way and his Truth Force (Satyagraha) has been truly and deservedly relegated to the showcase of our national museum to preach forever everything untrue that goes about in its name even today?
Written by Sugata Bose
Can anybody in his sanity believe that this dhoti-clad clan of pious protesters wrested independence from the mighty British which could in conjunction with its allies defeat the earth-shattering Axis Powers? Obviously, this dhoti band (no aspersion being cast on the national dress) could not liberate India but claimed the credit for the exploits of the INA which had truly precipitated conditions for India's eventual freedom. Non-violence and passive resistance was fertile enough in making salt and in spinning yarn but fell short of attaining even a semblance of independence.
My countrymen, read more about the revolutionaries and come to your own conclusions. I keep writing to instigate you into reading, inspire you into thinking and inform you into clarified conception about that which concerns you most, your past, your present and your future which are so intimately linked with the lives of the revolutionaries despite your relative unawareness about the same.
Just reflect this and everything will be crystal clear. Why does free India maintain the armed forces? Why does it go to war when its sovereignty is infringed upon? Why does it not wage passive Gandhian resistance to attempt solving such infringement as the Mahatma had eminently suggested? It is because the measure is impractical and doomed to failure if applied to redress such situations.
Now consider this. If such application to resolve aggression against our nation is considered by the government as being puerile, how on earth do the very same men, donning the cap named after the Mahatma but never ever worn by him, claim that those very non-violent measures had forced the British out of India? A contradiction in terms, is it not?
Any child who knows the basic Newtonian laws of dynamics will tell you that to resist the enemy threatening to invade requires far less force than to evict it once it has secured a permanent footing in the soil.
How on earth is armed action required in independent India to resist the threats of foreign aggression when the very independence was supposedly won by peaceful passive means of non-complying non-violence? Surely, the Government of India has missed a massive measure for maintenance of sovereignty, that which its Mahatma had taught. Or, was he wrong all the way and his Truth Force (Satyagraha) has been truly and deservedly relegated to the showcase of our national museum to preach forever everything untrue that goes about in its name even today?
Written by Sugata Bose
No comments:
Post a Comment