going bullet for bullet & bomb for bomb with the british empire would have been impactful bu would only have created a minor dent. the brits had indians in their ranks to use as cannon fodder & so were not losing much soldiers any way. it was the diplomatic coup lead by Mr. Gandhi which shamed the mighty british empire on the world stage. Mahatma Gandhi could also muster an army of gun totters & bomb poppers but the path he took has a much better impact on the empire than any all out war effort. none of the extremists lived to see freedom but Mr. Gandhi did.
By
Denny Joseph, Sr. Account Director, Noshe
| 12 28 2010 13:01:38 +0000
We have learnt a hard way in fighting for a freedom - you require all, say, left, right and centre. Its quite unassuming to say now that who will weigh more, as we would not be able to justify anything for the situation did not unfold in our presence. We would be making a blunder if we pass judgement for the history! The question would have been apt, if we asked, who would you support - Sonia Gandhi or Manmohan Singh?
By
S. Muralidharan, Executive Director, Knowledge Foundation & Campus Around the Corner
| 12 04 2010 03:39:08 +0000
M.G. because he is the only one went to every part of india and made us to know what is freedom..
By
Nagaraj , student, sdm
| 10 05 2010 15:24:59 +0000
It needs a lot of courage to support or even to follow Gandhiji. Many of the martyrs who followed Gandhiji were ordinary people like us. One of them was Matangini Hazra who being a widow led the non-violence march in her area and was killed by the British bullets. I gave her example to explain that not only Nehru or other Indian leaders supported Gantdhiji but the ordinary people who mostly bore the brunt of the British also supported him with their hearts for his ideals. This ideals are uniform and it will be as long as our civilization is there in this earth. With the unrest in most parts of the world and maiming becaming a part of our life we should embrace the ideals of non-violence and seek peace for the entire world
By
sanjay dey, Tax & accounting , Consultatnt
| 11 23 2009 07:22:02 +0000
My support is always to Gandhi. But at the same time there is a mis-concept on Bhagat Singh. Bhagat Singh no doubt was involved in violent protest in his initial stage. But he is quick to realise the non-violence method. He threw a bomb in to an empty space of assembly (intensionally not to kill anybody). he surrendered despite he is armed. He fought for freedom in the courtroom through debate. He might be convicted for a crime he did during his initial stage but his greatness & patriotism is more enlighted due to his non-violent movement at the latter stage. Thus Bhagat Singh also a follower of Gandhian philosophy. Gandhi in fact abandoned by Congress & India as early as 1946. Thus the present chaos are due to ignoring Gandhian thoughts. It is time to follow Gandhi thoughts to achieve true freedom.
By
Biranchi Narayan Acharya, Chief Manager (Projects), Simplex Infrastructures Ltd
| 10 27 2009 06:26:01 +0000
Before British aquired India, we were divided into small kingdoms and because of our division and strong desire to defeat the neighbouring kingdom we allowed british people to conquer both the kingdoms. by Bhagatsinghs way same situation would have arised after independence.Gandhiji has tried a lot to bring harmony in diversity. The common man in India was not armed with quality of weapons british army was having. Even britsh army was having lot of native people so a war against british would have been a war against native army itself. so a division at the base itself. Because of non-violance even native British employees could internally support Gandhiji. I agree by Bhgatsing's way freedom could have achieved much earlier but again we would have been fighting with each other even today. The aim of British was to buy cheap raw material from india and sell Finished products in india as well outside world by manufacturing in england. Gandhiji attacked exactly at this vital point by using swadeshi and British Govt. realised that expenditure on ruling India is more than revenue. When the main purpose was defeated they have no otherway than quiting India.
By
Raja S Patil, CEO/MD/Director, self employeed
| 10 21 2009 02:26:11 +0000
Non violence of course Supporters on the other side ,pls try out Bhagat singhs policy in your every day life whenever situation arises and see the result....It will be more violence and chaos....violence has never brought an amicable end result . Anyone who takes up a sword/gun dies by it.
By
Charles davison, Project Manager, Douglas OHI LLC
| 10 02 2009 11:48:01 +0000
i will go always MAHATMA GANDHI ,bcoz i m not talking who is right or wrong way.i see only which path or logic success.so MAHATMA GANDHI is success for freedom,non -violence method is right.my opinion is small process always impact deep .violence is very easy way .and every one go with is way,nobody like tuffest path like non-violance.so i will say go with success mantra means MAHATMA GANDHI
By
S.KUMAR , BD Manager, CONFIDANTIAL
| 10 02 2009 09:47:30 +0000
|
I happen to stumble on this question and definitely had to respond to it. Theres no second thought that the legend Bhagat Singh is greater that Gandhi. Yaar at an young age of 21 he sacrificed his life for the nation, he made British to take note of him and the seriousness of the indian independence struggle. Even Gandhi was afraid of the growing popularity of Bhagat singh. Bhaghat was pure at heart and did not play politics like what Ghandi did. Ghadhi didn't even attempt properly to save Bhaghat from the gallow. Its a pity that We do not celebrate the martyrs day as we celebrate the great Ghandi jayanti... Bhagat, Sukhdev, Azad, Subhas Chandra Bose and many many more have fought for our freedom. Our freedom is as a combined result of all these struggle and pleeeease not just because someone went on a satyagraha or took an ahimsa route. Just to add to it, it was Bhagat singh who demanded for full freedom. Ghandi was till then talking about dominion status. Where in we would still be under the control of British.
By
Humming Bird, Designing. Advertising. Business Identity. Print Production
| 01 22 2011 18:02:00 +0000
GUYS THINK FOR 2 MINUTES IF MAHATMA GANDHI WAS ALIVE WHEN 1971 AND KARGIL WAR HAPPENED, THEN DID U THINK THAT WE WILL WON THOSE WAR BY FOLLOWING GREAT GANDHI'S PATH i.e. NON-VIOLENCE. ANS YES, I DON'T HOPE THIS ANS BY YOUTH. AND IF NO. THEN TELL ME WHAT U GIVE NAME TO NATHURAM GODASE AS TERRORIST OR FREEDOM FIGHTER WITH VIOLENCE. B'COZ I THINK EVERYTHING HAVE LIMIT. BEYOND IT, IT BECOMES DANGEROUS FOR SOCIETY, HUMAN, HUMANITY FOR NATION ALSO. AND I THINK THAT DANGEROUS THING IS ENDED ONLY B'COZ OF NATHURAM GODASE. I DON'T HAVE ANY DOUBT ABT GREAT GANDHI AS FREEDOM FIGHTER. BUT HIS PATH IS NOT RIGHT AT EVERY TIME, EVERY WHERE. IF HE MODIFY HIS STATEMENT THAT GO THROUGH FIRSTLY NON-VIOLENCE AND THEN VIOLENCE IF CENT PERCEPTIBLY NEEDED. IF ANYONE HURT BY MY VIEW, PLEASE EXCUSE ME. BUT I THINK EVERY ONE HAS TO THINK BY DIFFERENT WAY ALSO. NOW SO MUCH TERRORISM INCREASES AND WE DECIDED TO FINISH IT BY NON-VIOLENCE THEN FIRSTLY THOSE PEOPLE FINISH WHO THINK LIKE THAT AND NOT ANY OTHER PERSON, THAT ONE BE TERRORIST. ONE MORE THINK I HAVE ADD IN THIS, THERE IS NO COMMUNITY, RELIGION, CASTE, COUNTRY OR CULTURE WHO TEACH HOW TO BECOME TERRORIST.
By
KIRAN BHOR, Accounts Assist./Accountant, Country Club (I) Ltd.
| 12 28 2010 09:16:12 +0000
It took so many years with the thinking of Mahatma Gandhi....if it would be not Bhagat Singh then the British Raj would never have shaken and not felt that threat from Indians...He actually showed the British raj that Indians have power to overdo anything...With all respect to MK Gandhi..He had the chance to save Bhagat Singh but he didnt..N the reason is still out there!!!
By
Gaurav Mehta, Development Chemist, Church & Dwight, UK Ltd
| 12 03 2010 20:19:41 +0000
this is the correct view .....if this could have been the case in those years,,today these blood sucking animal called as Congress wouldn't have governing us ,,,...i wish i go back in history and tell people to follow Bhagat singh and men's and call him as the real Mahatma and father of nation....
By
Santosh A. Jadhav, Sr. Officer Sales
| 10 05 2010 12:14:24 +0000
Bhagat Singh is true Indian hero... yahi wo inshaan hai jisne AZAADI ke sahi maine samjhaye aur desh me wo josh ka sanchar kiya jisse angrej sarkar puri tarah hil gayi... Gandhi ji ko laga agar ye jinda raha to sara credit ye le jayega karke unko faansi hone se nahi roka jabki unke pass mauka tha ki unko wo bacha sakte the, Gandhi ji ne apane swaarth ke liye is naujawaan ko faansi chadne se nahi bachaya..... Bhagat singh ne pure desh ke logo ke khoon me garmi bhar dii jisse aazaadi ki raah aasaan ho gayi... He is the true Indian Idol !!
By
Nohar Singh Dhruv, Jr. Engg, Chhatisgarh State Electrical Board
| 08 05 2010 17:08:19 +0000
While a lot of grassroots workers of the Congress gave up their lives for the sake of the country, ultimately it was the surviving top brass that got the power. And power is addictive. We do not know how many Congressmen, if any, actually were hanged by the Britishers. Perhaps because they were mild, they were not seeking an abrupt freedom from the Raj. It takes a lot to lead the people peacefully and it also takes a lot more to give up one's life for the cause. The real people who fought for freedom mostly gave their lives up and the survivors became ministers after independence. I would side with neither Gandhi nor Bhagat Singh. Both were extremes in their ways. But if you look at sacrifice, Bhagat's was much greater. He did not seek either recognition, fame, following etc. He could have easily changed his path to "ahimsa" , apologized to the British and lived long enough to become a Cabinet Minister after the Independence. However, he didn't care for his life : such spirit of sacrifice is rare.
By
Shyam S, Project Leader/Managing Consultant, A leading EDA firm
| 11 23 2009 07:49:59 +0000
Gandhiji and Bhagat singh have hell and heaven difference. Gandhiji is more famous because he got political popularity because of Congress. Freedom fighters like Bhagat singh didn't get that that doesn't mean they were not good. Rather, i would say, revolutionaries like them shook the British empire from its roots. Not the Non-violence. I am not saying Non-violence is bad. But we should according to time,place and circumstances. I like Gandhiji till 1935 not after that. He could have saved life of many revolutionaries including Bhagat and Udham singh but he didn't rather declared Udham singh as "MAD" !!! After Lala lajpat rai died, it was Bhagat singh and hi men who took the revenge. Rest all were just abusing British government. Thats it. They were good speakers and Revolutionaries were the real Actors....
By
Sarika Singh, Assistant Professor, BIT
| 10 03 2009 05:09:44 +0000
i dnt think it wd b a tough ques for todays india and indians!becoz today if u want to survive u need to be harsh,you should be aware of your right n if it is not accoladed to u then just go ahead n snatch it!!!its not a time to be patient n tolerate everything becoz today we have much more gruesome peoples rather than the britishers!!!!could u handle AL ZAZIRA or QUIDA with non voilence,every smart answer will be no n if yours is yes then congratulation you are the newborn 21st century MAHATMA!!!!!!!
By
shashi shekhar mishra, Engineer
| 10 03 2009 03:35:35 +0000
It is tough & too difficult question to answer for me. I am totally answerless but I will try to answer the same. Britishers ruled in India for many years & beat people for many years & there is a same contribution of both the leader to give freedom to India. One who accept way of silence & non-violence & another who accepted way of TIT FOR TAT. But more or less I will support Bhagat singh because todays generation lives for TIT FOR TAT.
By
prakashraj kumavat, MBA/PGDM student, Omegan School of Business (ICFAI Tripura)
| 10 02 2009 08:00:11 +0000
|
