Like Bhagat Singh & Netaji Other violent Leaders could we have get the independence before?
201825
Definitely. Gandhi was a corrupt man. Sadly the contributions of great freedom fighters are overlooked. I don't agree American or Britons knowledge of Gandhi, because they know nothing about him.
386411
HE IS GREAT LEADER OF INDIA.  HE CAN SPEAK ON ALL THE ISSUE RELATED TO OUR COUNTRY.  KANDHAR STORY IS ONE OF THE DECISION OF GROUP OF MINISTER.  THOUGH IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG BUT WHEN IT WAS TAKEN ONLY FOR THE SAFE GUARD OF OUR PASSENGERS.
175220
Yes I agree that they are brother in the concept of dividing the peoples , the minds and their hearts. Jinnah has divided the nation on the basis of religion where as Advani has divided the members of the family on the basis of religion. Jinnah did faught against both the britishers and his fellow brothers where as Advani is on the path of killing his own fellow citizens and getting humiliated by his own fellow partymen.
252160
NO.\n\nOnly those who believe the brainwashing campaign of white man's burden would say yes.\n\n##Largest man made famine in Bengal,\n\n##Detruction of educations system in India so that they could establish their own\n\n## Looting of India continuously for a long period created MASS poverty in India.\n\n##The burning of ancient books on Ayurveda in Kerala, so as to impose the European system of medicine on the natives, \n\n##the cutting of weavers' thumbs in Bengal with a view of crippling the production of superior Indian cloth and ensuring the sale of British products, \n\n##the ruthless, often bloody, extortion of revenue from the peasants for decades on end, even in the midst of the worst famines, \n\n##the whipping, hangings and tortures that awaited those who opposed the Empire - \n\nthese are only a few among the unending examples of the "providential character" of the British rule\n\n## "For the same amount of work a white man got three times the salary as an Indian would get." \n\nsource: Indian Labor Journal,\n\n\n"The British were more cunning at the game than the Portuguese, careful to show respect for Indian religions. Yet they sneered at the pagans behind their back, educated the Indian elite in British-run schools, or at Eton and Cambridge - which, if it did not guarantee conversion to Christianity, resulted in lapsed Hinduism, agnosticism, or an intellectual humanism.  \n\nIn India, Anglo indoctrination produced a generation of "brown sahibs" who looked down on the religion of the masses, the opium of the people. Such is the power of colonization that a whole generation must pass before the paralyzing spell wears off."  \n\nthere were for instance 125,000 medical institutes in Madras before the British came. Indians never lacked education, the Christians only brought British education to India, which in fact caused more damage to India by westernizing many of us." \n    source: Arise O' India - By Francois Gautier \n\n##The year 1857, therefore, marked the beginning of a new British policy of exploiting the existing caste and communal divisions in the country for their imperial ends. \n\n##"...dogs and Indians" were, by notification in that precise language, excluded from some of "Europeans only" clubs. Indians were not allowed to travel by railway carriages, or use railway waiting rooms, reserved for Europeans. Not only that, Indian judges were not allowed to try Europeans in the districts and the Ilbert Bill, introduced in 1883 during Lord Ripon's viceroyalty, to remedy the situation, had to be withdrawn in the face of vicious opposition by Europeans and Anglo-Indians. \n\n"While we hold onto India, we are a first rate power. If we lose India, we will decline to a third rate power. This is the value of India."   \n\n -  So spoke Lord Curzon in 1901\nAmerican Historian Will Durant has observed:\n\n"British rule in India is the most sordid and criminal exploitation of one nation by another in all recorded history. I propose to show that England has year by year been bleeding India to the point of death, and that self-government of India by the Hindus could not within any reasonable probability, have worse results than the present form of alien domination."\n\n##No traveler found India poor until the nineteenth century, but foreign merchants and adventurers sought her shores for the almost fabulous wealth, which they could there obtain. 'To shake the pagoda tree' became a phrase, somewhat similar to our modern expression 'to strike oil'."\n\nBuckminster Fuller (1895-1893) philosopher:-\n\n "The British were perhaps the most successful pirates in history. They came to India, pillaged the country in the name of trade and then enslaved it in the name of civilization."\n\nList goes on.........\n\n\nAdded: Really interesting that they still want more 8 to 10 bits of India!!! India toget
61219
Well since you have touched upon a very sensitive issue, I surely hope you do know a fair deal about the background on what has been happening in Nepal since the last decade or two.\n\nTo correct your question a bit, there are as of now three parties which are actively involved in the struggle to gain power and control of the Himalayan Kingdom. - 1) The King (Monarchy), 2) The Potilitcal Parties (Democracy) & 3) The Maoists (Republicans).\n\nInitially there was king's rule which was changed to the system of democracy. It is controversial yet has to be said that Democracy in Nepal has proved to be a failure and one of the mains reasons we are in the state in which we currently are.\n\nThe Maoists started from almost nothing and now control the better half of Nepal. The King had to gain power as the Kingdom under Democracy wasn't going anywhere. And well as for the Political Parties; Getting together was the only resort left for them to put forward a strong contention.\nSince the current struggle for power doesn't seem to be heading anywhere and the ones who are losing out the most while this is happening are the "People of Nepal".\n\nHence, the most sensible way for the King to head is to lay some strong guidelines for the good and pass on the power partially to the Democratic alliance. The King should do this as he doesnt seem to be getting any support from the International community.\n\nThe Maoists seem to be in a strong position to gain some power of their own. And if they can manage to work for the people and gain their support; it becomes a win-win situation. The political parties; well, they have the World in their support. Just for the simple fact that they stanbd for Democracy.\n\nOne can only hope that a Joint conclusion can be reached upon by the 3 parties involved. Past mistakes can be learnt from and not repeated in the future.\n\nThanks,\n\nPawan Agarwal.\npaw_ag@hotmail.com\nwww.itenhance.com
542013
Cool. Seeing as the UK is an elective autocracy, maybe we should both have spread a bit of democracy at home before liberating the rest of the world?
374993
Why not? We've invaded them before (refer to Punitive Expedition of 1916).
16039
Are you refering to "Rajneesh Chandra Mohan Jain" If so he was the leader of the Osho-Rajneesh movement. I haven't read the article so I would not due it justuice but below is the link.  Mind you the article is being disputed at the moment but it might give you a general idea about the man.
531590
Yes. Throughout the history of our country there has always been one group of people held down for the benefit of another
660261
Well bro if you want all the history chronological then it here:\nKashmir was free and I should be given freedom....\n\n\n 1947: August 14/15. British India is partitioned into India and Pakistan as part of the independence process. Majority Muslim areas in the West (now all of Pakistan) and East (the place now called Bangladesh) form Pakistan. The British also allow the nominal rulers of several hundred "princely states," who were tax collectors for the British and served at British pleasure, to decide whether they wanted to join India or Pakistan. Pakistan demands Kashmir accede to it. The Hindu ruler of Kashmir does not make a choice. Kashmir has three major ethnic areas: Ladakh in the northwest, which is majority Buddhist; the Kashmir Valley (controlled by India) and the part now controlled by Pakistan, which is majority Muslim, and Jammu (in the south), which is majority Hindu. The overall majority is Muslim.\n\n1948: "Tribesmen" from Pakistan invade Kashmir with the support of the Pakistani government. The ruler of Kashmir asks India for help. India demands that Kashmir should accede to India first. The ruler agrees. India sends forces to Kashmir and the invasion is blocked. Kashmir is divided into a Pakistani controlled part and an Indian controlled part. This de facto partition continues to this date with the dividing line being known as the Line of Control.\n\n1948: India takes the Kashmir issue to the U.N. Security Council, which passes a resolution calling on Pakistan to do all it can "secure the withdrawal" of Pakistani citizens and "tribesmen" and asking that a plebiscite be held to determine the wishes of the people of Kashmir. Neither the force withdrawal nor the plebiscite has taken place.\n\n1962: India and China fight a border war. China occupies a part of Ladakh.\n\n1965: India and Pakistan fight a border war along the India-West Pakistan border and the Line of Control in Kashmir. U.N. brokered cease fire and withdrawal to pre-war lines affirmed by the leaders of the two countries at a 1966 summit meeting in Tashkent, USSR (now Toshkent, Uzbekistan).\n\n1970-1971: An election in (East and West) Pakistan results in an overall majority for an East Pakistani party, which is ethnically mainly Bengali. The Pakistani military refuses to allow the Parliament to convene. East Pakistanis demand autonomy, then independence in the face of brutal repression by the Pakistani military. Guerilla warfare ensues. About ten million refugees stream into India from East Pakistan. India also provides sanctuary to Bangladeshi guerillas. Pakistan attacks airfields in India and Indian-controlled Kashmir. India strikes back in West Pakistan and also intervenes in the East on the side of the Bangladeshis. The U.S., in a "tilt" towards Pakistan, sends a nuclear-armed aircraft carrier, the Enterprise, and its battlegroup, to the region, in an implicit nuclear threat to India (which influences nuclear politics of India in favor of nuclear testing). Pakistan loses the war on both fronts and Bangladesh becomes independent.\n\n1972: India and Pakistan sign a peace accord, known as the Simla (or Shimla) agreement, according to which both sides agree "to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them." Both countries agree that they will not unilaterally try to alter the Line of Control in Kashmir.\n\n1974: India tests a nuclear device. Pakistan accelerates its nuclear weapons program.\n\n1980s: U.S. supports Islamic resistance to Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and also the dictatorship of Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, which promotes Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan.\n\nLate 1980s: There is a state-level election in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir. There is evidence of fraud. Militancy rises in Kashmir. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Hindu fundamentalism begins to become more power
435772
you are right... anyone committed to peace, neither holds a gun or sells them to others.  gandhi was a perfect example of that.
179610
There is a rough draft of the constitution that is available on several Khalistan support sites. There is nothing final as the Punjab region is not its own country. What is interesting is that every state in India wants to be its own country, which makes the Punjab/Khalistan dilemma no different from a lot of other states who want independence from India.\n\nWhat I'm trying to get at is that Khalistan most likely won't happen and never will unless the Indian government is completely overthrown and complete chaos ensues within South Asia.\n\nI, as a Punjabi, am against the idea of Khalistan just because the creation of such a country would displace Hindus and Muslims who have lived in the Punjab for many years before the birth of Sikhism, who's ancestors have supported Sikhism since the beginning teachings of Guru Nanak, and have always supported and allied with Sikhs at all times in history.\n\nYou can say that Hindus betrayed Sikhs in the 1980's, but you fail to realize that it wasn't the Punjabi Hindus who killed, raped, and tortured innocent Sikhs, it was Hindus from UP, Haryana, and Rajasthan that did that. Hindus living in Punjab who attacked Sikhs were Hindus from neighboring states that were placed in Punjab in order to give Hindus the majority vote in the region by the Indian government.\n\nKhalistan is distancing itself from its true allies: Hindus and Muslims who have lived and died in the Punjab, have fought side-by-side with Sikhs, and have cherished every bit of Punjabi culture as any Sikh or Jatt.\n\nAt the same time, who said Sikhs were the only people who could decide if Khalistan should be free? Punjabi Hindus have a right to say whether or not Khalistan should be formed and so do native Muslims in Punjab. Punjab isn't just the home of Sikhs, but the home of Muslims, Hindus, Parsis, Pathans, and Kashmiris. This is all of our land and we need to support each other, not break apart the state again by creating a country that will severly hurt Punjab culturally, ethnically, and religiously.
224922
He was a simple man who changed the destiny of India. He was unlike any politician or public figure anywhere in the world becuase he was an absolute antithesis of public leaders what we see today. Dressed in a small loin cloth he has a huge determination and innovative ways of fighting a freedom struggle. Isntead of guns, he fought the Britishers with weapons like non cooperation and non violence.  You got to read about him a lot to understand his philosophy becuase otherwise you wont understand him as most people in India and other countries dont.
90946
Like America once, India was part of the British Empire.  Gandhi was instrumental in helping India achieve independence in 1945, nonviolently.  Shortly thereafter, he was assassinated.
304540
It is.\n\nBritish started it when the reserved constituencies on this basis. then we got 2 large chunks of our country(east Pakistan ,now Bangladesh and west Pakistan) reserved only for one group, Muslims. British played the game to break feeling of unity and use different groups as suited to play politics. So is the game of our politicians. Do not forget these are the leaders who got trained under British.
409637
The nature of revolution is violence.  In the history of the world, there has never been a non-violent revolution.  Even Ghandi, the great pacifist did not believe that one could acheive revolution without violence.  Ghandi believed in non-violent resistance.  Ghandi expected that resistors would have to endure periods of great violence against them in order to achieve revolution.  So, I don't believe that revolution can be achieved without violence.\n\nNow, to your question.  As some have mentioned here, revolution is the means empolyed to replace a government, or institution that currently holds power.  Most of the reasons we revolt is because of governmental corruption or ineffectivity.  I believe that when the government fully abdons the tenants of US Constitution, and begin to trample on our Universal Human Rights, revolution would be necessary in order to restore a government, of, by and for the people. However, I don't believe that will be something that would ever happen in our lifetime.  To this point, the US government and our current way of life is comfortable for most.  There is no over-arching issue that all citizens are passionate enough about to go to war over.\n\nWhile I don't think there is a real possibility of another revolutionary war in our lifetime, I do believe that we are growing closer to a civil war, in which race will be the catalyst.  The continued unfettered flow of Mexicans across the borders into the US will result in a negative economic impact on US citizens.  I don't believe that you will see organized military involvement, but it will look more like gang/militia warfare on the streets of the US.
211887
Hey,\nmay i ask u a question, what's that makes u so fascinated abt gandhi. he was an ordinary person who studied law and then act as a lawyer from indian side and fight for its independence. he didn't make many sacrifices(i mean as compared to other revolutionaries). he waas against violence and that's it. u may call him coward or whatever but don't say he was a god. no doubt he was a very great person who helped my country to get independence. but then there were many other reasons for britishers leaving india. one of them was they were under huge losses and were unable to get any support from local people because except gandhi. whole of india had turned revoultionary against britishers and they were unable to control masses.\nso why so much fuss abt gandhi\nmail me thru' yahoo answers if u want to justify u'rself.