Gandhi and SC Bose

After Bhagat Singh, propagandists make use of the name of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose more than anyone else.They often quote Gandhi’s words “Pattabhi’s defeat is my own defeat” to weave stories not backed by any historical basis but by their own thoughts.S.C.Bose died early fighting for freedom but Gandhi lived long till independence. What else is required for anti-Gandhi brigade to portray a picture of rivalry between the two to vilify Gandhi?What they don’t understand is that Gandhi was the leader of national movement commanding respect from all quarters long before SC Bose raised his profile in Congress. SC Bose had great respect for Gandhi and he was aware of his importance in national movement.He once said ‘If I give a call than 20 lakh people would come, but if Gandhiji gives a call than 20 crore would come’.

How many from the current generation know that it was SC Bose who referred to Gandhi as ‘Father of Indian nation’ for the first time?On 6^th July,1944 ,Bose in a broadcast from Rangoon addressed to Gandhi on Azad Hind Radio said:

‘India’s last war of independence has begun… Father of our nation,In this holy war of India’s liberation, we ask for your blessings and good wishes’.

Quoting Madhu Dandwate(former Railway minister in Janata govt) from his lecture "Gandhi's Human Touch":

Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose on the day of the formation of the Azad Hind Government, addressing Gandhi on the Azad Hind Ratio, said: "Bapuji, you might not be believing in violence and we have taken to arms. But basically we are on the same wave-length. You are motivated by the urge for freedom, we too are motivated by the same urge. The struggle that was started after your arrest on 9th August1942 did not remain locked up only in India. That started the freedom struggle far and wide. It touched the hearts and minds of my army men and though they think, I am their leader, in fact you are our leader."

SC Bose even named one battalion of INA after Gandhi.Their differences were more ideological. SC Bose had only one thing in mind,he wanted to take advantage of British position in war to gain independence for India.But Gandhi was against the idea of taking advantage of enemy’s position and moreover Congress party was not inclined to do anything that would help the fascist forces in the War.SC Bose reportedly said 'it will be tragic for me if I succeeded in winning the confidence of other people but failed to win the confidence of India's greatest man’

With the failure of Cripp’s mission and non-assurance of British govt for complete independence after war,Gandhi himself drafted the Quit India resolution on Aug 8,1942.

For more on Gandhi and Bose go through this link

http://orissagov.nic.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/jan2005/englishPdf/Gandhi_subhas.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Coming back to the issue of SC Bose’s exit from Congress in 1939.

SC Bose was elected as the party president in Haripura session of congress in 1938.He and Nehru were part of the leftist pressure group within Congress,and they advocated Soviet model of industrialisation,planning and other things.Their ideas were not well received by the right wing leaders.It was not Gandhi but the majority of the Congress working committee that constituted the right wing of congress,which opposed SC Bose's candidature for the presidentship in 1939.

When Bose announced his decision to contest for second term,the right wing set up Pattabhi sitaramyya with the blessings of Gandhi.A heated debate went on prior to the election in the press between Bose and right wing leaders like Sardar patel.There is nothing like personal clash here.The entire congress was divided in to leftist and rightist camps.Bose won the election with a majority of over 200 votes.Sitaramayya was no match to Bose in popularity among the lower rung congress leaders.During the contest Gandhi remained silent and after the election he acknowledged sitaramayya's defeat as his own defeat.This incident is twisted by conspiracy theorists.

What followed next is this.Most of the members of the CWC dominated by right wing leaders resigned enbloc.Gandhi was in the princely state of Rajkot in support of ongoing political movement against the ruler.At the Tripuri session of Congress,a resolution was passed according to which, it was imperative that the congress executive should command Gandhi's implicit confidence and therefore it enjoined on the president "to nominate the working committee in accordance with the wishes of Gandhi".Thus,the congress right wing made vote of confidence in Gandhi.Bose carried correspondence with Gandhi and these letters are available in collected works of Gandhi.It was Bose's view that the working committee should be composite representing all views in the light of the resolution passed by the Tripuri session.Gandhi was of the view that working committee should be homogeneous in character.He advised SC Bose to go ahead and form the Working committee according to his choice.But in the face of resolution passed by the top leadership he couldn't do so.No agreement was possible even after talks with various leaders.It was then,he offered his resignation as party president.In doing so he said to the AICC session ' ..I would only repeat my request that Gandhiji should kindly shoulder the responsibility vested in him by the Tripuri congress and nominate the working committee..Unfortunately for us Gandhiji felt unable to nominate the working committee..after mature deliberation,therefore, and in entirely helpful spirit I am placing my resignation in your hands".

He was convinced of India's political need of an organized and disciplined left bloc in congress.He organised Forward bloc soon after his resignation.Forward Bloc under his leadership went on offensive with demonstrations demanding democratic right to criticise and publicly discuss policies followed by congress ministries in provinces and by the high command.The new president of congress Dr.Rajendra Prasad asked Bose not to proceed with the demonstrations.Many events followed this.A left coordination committee was formed with Forward bloc,Congress socialist party,Radical democratic party with SC Bose as the Chairman to balance the right wing domination in Congress.However differences within the left cordination committee made it a non-starter.When the WW2 broke out Forward bloc went ahead with its own programme.

For more read "Netaji Subash Chandra Bose",a biography written by his own nephew and founder of Netaji's Bureau,Sisir kumar Bose.

Gita According to Gandhi

http://members.aol.com/jajnsn/index.html

My Friend, The Revolutionary

One of the topics in anti gandhi propoganda is that Gandhi called Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh, Misguided Patriots and Venmous reptiles. I present an article from Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol 31, Pg. 137, Article no. 81. This article had appeared in Young India on 9th April 1925.

In this article, Mahatma Gandhi answers questions of a revolutionary. The text in italics are the questions and normal text are the answers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY FRIEND, THE REVOLUTIONARY

The revolutionary whom I endeavoured to answer some time ago, has returned to the charge and challenges me to answer certain questions that arise out of my previous answers to him. I gladly do so. He seems to me to be seeking light, even as I am, and argues fairly and without much passion. So long as he continues to reason calmly, I promise to continue the discussion. His first question is:

Do you really believe that the revolutionaries of India are less sacrificing, less noble or less lovers of their country than the Swarajists, Moderates and the Nationalists? May I challenge you to keep before the public the names of some Swarajists, Moderates of Nationalists who have embraced the death of a martyr for the sake of the motherland? Can you be bold, any, arrogant enough to deny it in the face of historical facts that the revolutionaries have sacrificed more for their country than any other party which professes of serve India? You are ready to make compromises with other parties, while you abhor our party and describe the[ir] sentiments as poison. Will you not tremble to use the same word of intolerance for the sentiments of any other party which is decidedly inferior in the eyes of God and men to us? What makes you shrink from calling them misguided patriots or venomous reptiles?

I do not regard the revolutionaries of India to be less sacrificing, less noble or less lovers of their country than the rest. But I respectfully contend that their sacrifice, nobility and love are not only a waste of effort, but being ignorant and misguided, do and have done more harm to the country than any other activity. For, the revolutionaries have retarded the progress of the country. Their reckless disregard of the lives of their opponents has brought on repression that has made those that do not take part in their warfare more cowardly than they were before. Repression does good only to those who are prepared for it. The masses are not prepared for the repression that follows in the trail of revolutionary activities and unwittingly strengthen the hands of the very Government which the revolutionaries are seeking to destroy. It is my certain conviction that had the Chauri Chaura murders not taken place the movement attempted at Bardoli would have resulted in the establishment of swaraj. Is it, therefore, any wonder that, with such opinion I call the revolutionary a misguided and therefore, dangerous patriot? I would call my son a misguided and dangerous nurse who, because of his ignorance and blind love, fought at the cost of his own life the physicians whose system of medicine no doubt did me harm but which I could not escape for want of will or ability. The result would be that I would lose a noble son and bring down upon my head the wrath of the physicians who, suspecting my complicity in the son's activities, might seek to punish me in addition to continuing their harmful course of treatment. If the son had attempted to convince the physicians of their error, or me of my weakness in submitting to the treatment, the physicians might have mended their way, or I might have rejected the treatment, or would, at least, have escaped the wrath of the physicians. I do make certain compromises with the other parties because, though I disagree with them, I do not regard their activities as positively harmful and dangerous as I regard the revolutionaries'. I have never called the revolutionaries"venom- ous reptiles". But I must refuse to fall into hysterics over their sacrifices, however great they may be, even as I must refuse to give praise to the sacrifice of my misguided son for his sacrifice in the illustration supposed by me. I feel sure that those who through insufficient reasoning or false sentiment, secretly or openly, give praise to the revolutionaries for their sacrifices, do harm to them and the cause they have at heart. The writer has asked me to quote instances of nonrevolutionary patriots who gave their lives for the country. Well, two completed cases occur to me as I write these notes. Gokhale and Tilak died for their country. They worked in almost total disregard of their health and died much earlier than they need have. There is no necessary charm about death on the gallows; often such death is easier than a life of drudgery and toil in malarious tracts. I am quite satisfied that among the Swarajists and others there are men who will any day lay down their lives if they felt convinced that their death would bring deliverance to the country. I suggest to my friend, the revolutionary, that death on the gallows serves the country only when the victim is a "spotless lamb".

"India's path is not Europe's". Do you really believe it? Do you mean to say that warfare and organization of army was not in existence in India, before she came in contact with Europe? Warfare for fair cuase—Is it against the spirit of India? Vinashaya cha dushkritam—Is it something imported from Europe? Granted that it is, will you be fanatic enough not to take from Europe what is good? Do you believe that nothing good is possible in Europe? If conspiracy, bloodshed and sacrifice for fair cause are bad for India, will they not be bad as well for Europe?

I do not deny that India had armies, warfare, etc., before she came in contact with Europe. But I do say that it never was the normal course of Indian life. The masses, unlike those of Europe were untouched by the warlike spirits. I have already said in these pages that I ascribe to the Gita, from which the writer has quoted the celebrated verse, a totally different meaning from that ordinarily given. I do not regard it as a description of, or an exhortation to, physical warfare. And, in any case, according to the verse quoted it is God the All Knowing Who descends to the earth to punish the wicked. I must be pardoned if I refuse to regard every revolutionary as an all knowing God or an avatar. I do not condemn everything European. But I condemn, for all climes and for all times, secret murders and unfair methods even for a fair cause.

"India is not Calcutta and Bombay" May I most respectfully put it before your Mahatmaship that the revolutionaries know the geography of India enough to be able to know this geographical fact easily. We hold this fact as much as we hold that a few spinners do no form the Indian nation. We are entering villages and have been successful everywhere. Can you not believe that they , the son of Shivaji, Pratap and Ranjit, can appreciate our sentiments with more readiness and depth than anything else? Don't you think that armed and conspired resistance against something satanic and ignoble is infinitely more befitting for any nation, especially Indian, than the prevalence of effortlessness and philosophical cowardice? I mean the cowardice which is pervading the length and breadth of Indian owing to the preaching of your theory of non-violence or more correctly the wrong interpretation and misuse of it. Non-violence is not the theory of the weak and helpless, it is the theory of the strong. We want to produce such men in India, who will not shrink from death—whenever it may come and in whatever form—will do the good and die. This is the spirit with which we are entering the villages. We are not entering the villages to extort votes for councils and district boards, but our object is to secure co-martyrs for the country who will die and a stone will not tell where his poor corpse lies. Do you believe like Mazzini that ideas ripen quickly, when nourished by the blood of martyrs?

It is not enough to know the geographical difference between Calcutta and the villages outside the railways. If the revolutionaries knew the organic difference between these, they would, like me, become spinners. I own that the few spinners we have, do not make India. But I claim that it is possible to make all India spin as it did before, and so far as sympathy is concerned, millions are even now in sympathy with the movement, but they never will be with the revolutionary. I dispute the claim that the revolutionaries are succeeding with the villagers. But if they are, I am sorry. I shall spare no pains to frustrate their effort. Armed conspiracies against something satanic is like matching satans against Satan. But since one Satan is one too many for me, I would not multiply him. Whether my activity is effortlessness or all efforts, remains perhaps to be seen. Meanwhile, if it has resulted in making two yards of yarn spun where only one was spinning, it is so much to the good. Cowardice, whether philosophical or otherwise, I abhor. And if I could be persuaded that revolutionary activity has dispelled cowardice, it will go a long way to soften my abhorrence of the method, however much I may still oppose it on principle. But he who runs may see that owing to the non-violent movement, the villagers have assumed a boldness to which only a few years ago they were strangers. I admit that non-violence is a weapon essentially of the strong. I also admit that often cowardice is mistaken for non-violence. My friend begs the question when he says a revolutionary is one who "does the good and dies". That is precisely what I question. In my opinion, he does the evil and dies. I do not regard killing or assassination or terrorism as good in any circumstances whatsoever. I do believe that ideas ripen quickly when nourished by the blood of martyrs. But a man who dies slowly of jungle fever in service bleeds as certainly as the one on the gallows. And if the one who dies on the gallows is not innocent of another's blood, he never had ideas that deserved to ripen.

One of your objections against the revolutionaries is that their movement, is not mass movement, consequently the mass at large will be very little benefited by the revolution, for which we are preparing. That is indirectly saying that we shall be most benefitted by it. Is it really what you mean to say? Do you believe that those persons who are ever ready to die fortheir country—those mad lovers of their country—I mean the revolutionaries of India in whom the spirit of nishkama karma reigns, will betray their motherland and secure privileges for a life—this trifling life? It is true that we will not drag the mass just now in the field of action, because we know that it is weak, but when the preparation is complete, we shall call them in the open field. We profess to understand the present Indian psychology full well, because we daily get the chance of weighing our brethren along with ourselves. We know that the mass of India is after all Indian, it is not weak by itself but there is want of efficient leaders; so when we have begot the number of leaders required by constant propaganda and preaching, and the arms, we shall not shrink from calling, and if necessary, dragging the mass in the open field to prove that they are the descendants of Shivaji, Ranjit, Pratap and Govind Singh. Besides we have been constantly preaching that the mass is not for the revolution but the revolution is for the mass. Is it sufficient to remove your prejudice in this connection?

I neither say nor imply that the revolutionary benefits if the masses do not. On the contrary, and as a rule, the revolutionary never benefits in the ordinary sense of the word. If the revolutionaries succeed in attracting, not "dragging", the masses to them, they will find that the murderous campaign is totally unnecessary. It sounds verypleasant and exciting to talk of "the descendants of Shivaji, Ranjit, Pratap and Govind Singh". But is it true? Are we all descendants of these heroes in the sense in which the writer understands it? We are their countrymen, but their descendants are the military classes. We may, in future, be able to obliterate caste, but today it persists and therefore the claim put up by the writer cannot in my opinion be sustained.

Last of all, I shall ask you to answer these questions: Was Guru Govind Singh a misguided patriot because he believed in warfare for noble cause? What will you like to say about Washington, Garibaldi and Lenin? What do you think of Kamal Pasha and De Valera? Would you like to call Shivaji and Pratap, well-meaning and sacrificing physicians who prescribed arsenic when they should have given fresh grape-juice? Will you like to call Krishna Europeanized because he believed also in the vinasha of dushkritas?

This is a hard or rather awkward question. But I dare not shirk it. In the first instance Guru Govind Singh and the others whose names are mentioned did not believe in secret murder. In the second, Effort without desire, the principal teaching of the Gita these patriots knew their work and their men, whereas the modern Indian revolutionary does not know his work. He has not the men, he has not the atmosphere, that the patriots mentioned had. Though my views are derived from my theory of life I have not put them before the nation on that ground. I have based my opposition to the revolutionaries on the sole ground of expedience. Therefore, to compare their activities with those of Guru Govind Singh or Washington or Garibaldi or Lenin would be most misleading and dangerous. But by test of the theory of non-violence, I do not hesitate to say that it is highly likely that had I lived as their contemporary and in the respective countries, I would have called everyone of them a misguided patriot, even though a successful and brave warrior. As it is, I must not judge them. I disbelieve history so far as details of acts of heroes are concerned. I accept broad facts of history and draw my own lessons or my conduct. I do not want to repeat it in so far as the broad facts contradict the highest laws of life. But I positively refuse to judge men from the scanty material furnished to us by history. De mortuis nil nisi bonum.1 Kamal Pasha and De Valera too I cannot judge. But for me, as a believer in non-violence out and out they cannot be my guides in life in so far as their faith in war is concerned. I believe in Krishna perhaps more than the writer. But my Krishna is the Lord of the universe, the creator, preserver and destroyer of us all. He may destroy because He creates. But I must not be drawn into a philosophical or religious argument with my friends. I have not the qualifications for teaching my philosophy of life. I have barely qualifications for practising the philosophy I believe. I am but a poor struggling soul yearning to be wholly good—wholly truthful and wholly non-violent in thought, word and deed, but ever failing to reach the ideal which I know to be true. I admit, and assure my revolutionary friends, it is a painful climb but the pain of it is a positive pleasure for me. Each step upward makes me feel stronger and fit for the next. But all that pain and the pleasure are for me. The revolutionaries are at liberty to reject the whole of my philosophy. To them I merely present my own experiences as co-worker in the same a cause even as I have successfully presented them to the Ali Brothers Of the dead say nothing but good. and many other friends. They can and do applaud whole-heartedly the action of Mustafa Kamal Pasha and possibly De Valera and Lenin. But they realize with me that India is not like Turkey or Ireland or Russia and that revolutionary activity is suicidal at this stage of the country's life at any rate, if not for all time in a country so vast, so hopelessly divided and with the masses so deeply sunk in pauperism and so fearfully terror-struck.

Gandhi Speaks: "My Spiritual Message"

Find the audio file in the following links.Both are one and the same.

http://www.harappa.com/gandhi.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/audiointerviews/profilepages/gandhim1.shtml

Did Gandhi do his best to save Bhagat Singh?

Bhagat Singh, Raj Guru, Sukh Dev were proven guilty of killing a police officer Saunders and were sentenced to death in Lahore Conspiracy case. They wanted to avenge the death of Lala Lajpat Rai who was injured in a lathicharge ordered by Saunders. Gandhi pleaded with the then Viceroy Lord Irwin for commutation of their death sentence even though he never approved political killings. This has to be told to put to rest the canard being spread by bollywood movie buffs that Gandhi was responsible for Bhagat Singh's execution or that he didn't do enough to save Bhagat Singh's life.

We fail to realize that Bhagat Singh in 1931 was one among many revolutionaries and he turned popular during court trial and after his martyrdom. Indian National Congress came under pressure to do something to save their lives. The British, on the other hand had no intention of commuting the sentence.They intentionally carried out the execution on the eve of Karchi session of INC as if to embarrass its leadership.

Bhagat Singh didn't wish to live long after he was sentenced to death.The trio refused to apologize and declined to file a mercy petition. Gandhi took up the issue with viceroy Lord Irwin during his negotiations post mass civil disobedience movement of 1930-31. There was nothing that Gandhi could do to save their lives. He himself was fighting with the British Indian government and failed to secure all the demands put forward during his talks with viceroy.

Go through the following essays:

1."Of means and ends" Frontline,April 2001

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1808/18080910.htm

Viceroy Lord Irwin: "As I listened to Mr. Gandhi putting the case for commutation before me, I reflected first on what significance it surely was that the apostle of non-violence should so earnestly be pleading the cause of the devotees of a creed so fundamentally opposed to his own, but I should regard it as wholly wrong to allow my judgment to be influenced by purely political considerations. I could not imagine a case in which under the law, penalty had been more directly deserved."

2."Did the Mahatma do his best to save Bhagat Singh?" by RK Bhatnagar, former press secretary to President R Venkataraman.

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/4940

3."Half Truths and True Lies" by Sankar Ray, Hindustan Times

http://www.gandhiserve.org/news/mgnd/news200609250930.html#a6



Gandhi's final attempt on the day of execution
Letter to Viceroy,March 23,1931

DARYAGANJ, DELHI,
March 23, 1931

DEAR FRIEND,
It seems cruel to inflict this letter on you,but the interest of peace demands a final appeal.Though you were frank enough to tell me that there was little hope of your commuting the sentence of death on Bhagat Singh and two others,you said you would consider my submission of Saturday.Dr. Sapru met me yesterday and said that you were troubled over the matter and taxing your brain as to the proper course to adopt.If there is any room left for reconsideration,I invite you attention to the following.

Popular opinion rightly or wrongly demands commutation.When there is no principle at stake,it is often a duty to respect it.In the present case the chances are that,if commutation is granted,internal peace is most likely to be promoted.In the event of execution, peace is undoubtedly in danger.

Seeing that I am able to inform you that the revolutionary party has assured me that,in the event of these lives being spared,that party will stay its hands, suspension of sentence pending cessation of revolutionary murders becomes in my opinion a peremptory duty.

Political murders have been condoned before now.It is worth while saving these lives,if thereby many other innocent lives are likely to be saved and maybe even revolutionary crime lmost stamped out.Since you seem to value my influence such as it is in favour of peace,do not please unnecessarily make my position,difficult as it is,almost too difficult for future work.

Execution is an irretrievable act.If you think there is the slightest chance of error of judgment,I would urge you to suspend for further review an act that is beyond recall.

If my presence is necessary,I can come. Though I may not speak I may hear and write what I want to say.

“Charity never faileth.”
I am,
Your sincere friend,

From a Photostat: C.W. 9343,Courtesy: India Office Library. Source: Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/cwmg.html

on the very day in his letter superscribed "confidential" the Viceroy wrote: 'I have again thought very carefuly over everything that you have said- and the last thing I should wish to do would be to make your task, especially at this juncture, more difficult. But I am afraid, for the reasons I sought to explain fully to you in conversation, I cannot see my way to feel that it would be right to take the action you request...."(C.W.9344)

Gandhi had no reason to speak for three revolutionaries as he never believed in their means .Being a humanist he pleaded for sparing their lives.He was not in a position to command and he himself spent more than 2000 days of his lifetime in jails of SOouth Africa and India.Even assuming that Gandhi could have saved them, the trio preferred to die and refused to seek any commutation of death sentence.

Gandhi's tribute to the martyrs, Navajivan, 29-3-1931.

Brave Bhagat Singh and his two associates have been hanged.Many attempts were made to save their lives and even some hopes were entertained, but all was in vain.Bhagat Singh did not wish to live. He refused to apologize; declined to file an appeal. If at all he would agree to live, he would do so for the sake of others; if at all he would agree to it, it would be in order that his death might not provoke anyone to indiscriminate murder.Bhagat Singh was not a devotee of non-violence, but he did not subscribe to the religion of violence; he was prepared to commit murder out of a sense of helplessness. His last letter was as follows: “I have been arrested while waging a war. For me there can be no gallows. Put me into the mouth of a cannon and blow me off.” These heroes had conquered the fear of death. Let us bow to them a thousand times for their heroism.But we shouldn't imitate their act.I am not prepared to believe that the country has benefited by their action.I can see only harm that has been done.We could have won swaraj long ago if that line of action had not been pursued and we could have waged a purely nonviolent struggle.There may well be two opinions on this conjecture of mine.However, no one can deny the fact that if the practice of seeking justice through murders is established amongst us, we shall start murdering one another for what we believe to be justice.In a land of crors of destitutes and crippled persons, this will be a terrifying situation. These poor people are bound to become victims of our atrocities. It is desirable that everyone should consider consequenes of this.Further, we want a swaraj which is theirs and for them.By making a dharma of violence, we shall be reaping the fruit of our own actions. Hence, though we praise the courage of these bravemen, we should never countenance their activities.By hanging these men,the government has demonstrated its brute nature, it has provided fresh proof of its arrogance resulting from its power by ignoring public opinion. From this hanging it may be concluded that it is not the intention of the Government to part with any real power to the people. The Government certainly had the right to hang these men. However, there are some rights which do credit to those who possess them only if they are enjoyed in name only. If a person exercises all his rights on all occasions, in the end they are destroyed. On this occasion, the Government would have brought credit to itself if it had not exercised its rights and this would have been highly useful in maintaining peace. However, it is obvious that the Government has not to date developed such discretion. It has given a clear reason for the public to get enraged. If the latter shows anger, it will lose the game which it is about to win. Some officials may even hope that the public will give vent to its anger. Whether they do so or not, ours is a straightforward path. While negotiating the settlement, Bhagat Singh’s hanging was weighing upon us. We had hoped that the government would be cautious enough to pardon Bhagat Singh and his associates to the extent of remitting the sentence of hanging. We should not break the pledge we have taken just because our hopes have not been fulfilled, but should bear this blow which has fallen upon us and honour our pledge. By doing so under even such trying circumstances, our strength to get what we desire will increase rather than decrease, while, if we break our pledge or violate the truce, we shall suffer loss of vigour, loss of strength and it will add to our present difficulties in reaching our objective. Hence our dharma is to swallow our anger, abide by the settlement and carry out our duty.

Coming to Bhagat Singh,he was a revolutionary socialist and was inspired by Bolshevik revolution.He wanted independent India to be a socialist state.On his advice the name of the revolutionary organisation HRA(Hindustan Republican Army) was changed to HSRA (Hindustan Socialist Republican Army). In his last testament dated Feb 2,1931, he advised the youth of India that revolutionary violence will not lead to India's independence

Apparently I have acted like a terrorist.But I am not a terrorist....Let me announce with all the strength at my command, that I am not a terrorist and I never was,except perhaps in the beginning of my revolutionary career.And I am convinced that we cannot gain anything through these methods

Bhagat Singh said that only mass based movements can achieve freedom.He declared : the real revolutionary armies are in the villages and factories.

What amuses me is the way some people having no faith in Bhagat Singh's ideology taking up his name just to vilify Gandhi. Do they approve Bhagat Singh's words on Atheism or Marx or Lenin? If not they should stop abusing the sentiments associated with Bhagat Singh's name.

A Tribute to Gandhi

MohanDas Karamchand Gandhi, father of Indian nation is known to the world as the apostle of peace and the epitome of truth."Truth is god" he said.He demonstrated the power of 'Truth' and 'Righteousness' to the humanity.He faced the might of British empire with weaponless 'Satyagraha'. The grassroot freedom struggle in India which occupied a distinct place in modern history goes to his credit.He showed the world an everlasting method of 'Conflict resolution' which is more important now than ever before. In his lifetime he refused to take credit for anything."Truth and Non-violence are as old as hills" he said.His greatness lied in his humility. Whole generation of India venerated him once. Another generation grew up reading about him.Even in this age he remains a role model to many of us. As one renowned scientist noted

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

It is no exaggeration to say that for many years after independence India was identified with Gandhi among other things.


It is sad and painful to watch few in our generation speaking ill about Gandhi.They make no attempt to understand either Gandhi or his principles before attributing their own thinking and hearsay distorted facts to him.Most of them are misguided by online propaganda. We intend to correct those distortions from credible sources and say more about the application of Gandhian principles in day-to-day life at individual as well as societal level.